[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1160991215.17131.26.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:33:35 +0000
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...il.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"nmeyers@...tmark.com" <nmeyers@...tmark.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Major slab mem leak with 2.6.17 / GCC 4.1.1
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 16/10/06, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:07 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > Kmemleak introduces some overhead but shouldn't be that bad.
> > > DEBUG_SLAB also introduces an overhead by erasing the data in the
> > > allocated blocks.
> >
> > 2.6.18 with your rc6 patch booted normally with stack unwind enabled.
>
> The only difference is that kmemleak now uses save_stack_trace() to
> generate the call chain. In the previous versions I implemented a
> simple stack backtrace myself, with the disadvantage that it only
> worked on ARM and x86.
>
> I think kmemleak should use the common stack trace API and investigate
> why it is slower (either save_stack_trace is slower with stack unwind
> enabled or kmemleak doesn't use these functions properly).
The stack traces look fine without unwind, and at a glance looked fine
with unwind as well, so I speculate you must be using save_stack_trace
properly. The only difference I noticed was the incredible speed
difference. I gave up on getting to run level 5 with unwind, getting to
level 2 took ages, and the box was horribly slow at everything.
-Mike
-
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