On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:43:16PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 02:16:12PM -0600, Herb Peyerl wrote:
> > [...]
> > 714 mbufs in use:
> >         146 mbufs allocated to data
> >         567 mbufs allocated to packet headers
> >         1 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses
> > 25619 calls to protocol drain routines
> > 
> > [...]
> > Memory resource pool statistics
> > Name        Size Requests Fail Releases Pgreq Pgrel Npage Hiwat Minpg  
> > Maxpg Idle
> > mclpl       2048   183151 22639  117629 40643  7882 32761 32761     4  
> > 32768    0
> 
> Hum
> 183151 - 117629 = 65522, so this really makes 32761 pages.
> Looks like a leak somewhere, because it seems these clusters are not
> attached to mbufs (there isn't 65522 mbufs allocated).

I was just looking at a similar problem on john klos's cobalt box last night:

Name        Size Requests Fail Releases Pgreq Pgrel Npage Hiwat Minpg Maxpg Idle
mbpl         256  2030774    0  2013827  2924  1691  1233  1321     1   inf    0
mclpl       2048   429969 5987311 413585 40542 32346 8196  8196     4  8192    4

# netstat -m
16540 mbufs in use:
        16538 mbufs allocated to data
        2 mbufs allocated to packet headers
6001641 calls to protocol drain routines
# netstat -m
16540 mbufs in use:
        16538 mbufs allocated to data
        2 mbufs allocated to packet headers
6001654 calls to protocol drain routines
# netstat -m
16540 mbufs in use:
        16538 mbufs allocated to data
        2 mbufs allocated to packet headers
6001662 calls to protocol drain routines


definitely a leak somewhere.  this case was on 2.1_RC3.
we have a dump if anyone wants to look at it.

-Chuck