[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:27:06 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] kmemleak: Enable the building of the memory leak
detector
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:20 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:28 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > +config DEBUG_MEMLEAK
> > + bool "Kernel memory leak detector"
> > + default n
> > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> > + select DEBUG_SLAB if SLAB
> > + select SLUB_DEBUG if SLUB
> > + select DEBUG_FS
> > + select STACKTRACE
> > + select FRAME_POINTER
> > + select KALLSYMS
>
> So, not all architectures have STACKTRACE or FRAME_POINTER. I think a
> few of these should at least be done with depends.
I think it could depend on STACKTRACE_SUPPORT. Alternatively, it could
select STACKTRACE only if it is supported, though for architectures
without it, the kmemleak reports wouldn't be very useful.
Does FRAME_POINTER even matter? I think STACKTRACE should be enough to
get the backtrace. I even have some ARM patches for stack unwinding
where FRAME_POINTER is disabled (and shouldn't be enabled).
> Is this feature accessible if DEBUG_FS=n? It seems to compile OK, but I
> wonder if it is useful.
Well, it is recommended. If you don't have this, you can't trigger a
scan manually by reading the /sys/kernel/debug/memleak file (have to
rely on the automatic thread). In my local tree (not published yet), I
also added support for run-time configuration by writing to this file.
Is there any disadvantage in always selecting DEBUG_FS?
Thanks.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists