[ovs-discuss] ovs-vswitchd process huge memory consumption

[Ben Pfaff]

You're talking about the email where you dumped out a repeating sequence
from some blocks?  That might be the root of the problem, if you can
provide some more context.  I didn't see from the message where you
found the sequence (was it just at the beginning of each of the 4 MB
blocks you reported separately, or somewhere else), how many copies of
it, or if you were able to figure out how long each of the blocks was.
If you can provide that information I might be able to learn some
things.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 09:07:55AM +0400, Oleg Bondarev wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> I didn't have a chance to debug the scripts yet, but just in case you
> missed my last email with examples of repeatable blocks
> and sequences - do you think we still need to analyze further, will the
> scripts tell more about the heap?
> 
> Thanks,
> Oleg
> 
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:14 PM Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 01:41:45PM +0400, Oleg Bondarev wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thanks for the scripts, so here's the output for a 24G core dump:
> > > https://pastebin.com/hWa3R9Fx
> > > there's 271 entries of 4MB - does it seem something we should take a
> > closer
> > > look at?
> >
> > I think that this output really just indicates that the script failed.
> > It analyzed a lot of regions but didn't output anything useful.  If it
> > had worked properly, it would have told us a lot about data blocks that
> > had been allocated and freed.
> >
> > The next step would have to be to debug the script.  It definitely
> > worked for me before, because I have fixed at least 3 or 4 bugs based on
> > it, but it also definitely is a quick hack and not something that I can
> > stand behind.  I'm not sure how to debug it at a distance.  It has a
> > large comment that describes what it's trying to do.  Maybe that would
> > help you, if you want to try to debug it yourself.  I guess it's also
> > possible that glibc has changed its malloc implementation; if so, then
> > it would probably be necessary to start over and build a new script.
> >