[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1250458727.8085.6.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:38:47 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.31-rc6, BTRFS] potential memory leaks...
On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 13:55 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com> wrote:
> >> There is good chance that the BTRFS kmemleak reports using 2.6.31-rc6
> >> [1] are false-positives, due to the overwriting of the static pointers
> >> [2]. Does this ring true with anyone else?
> >
> > If you do a few echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak, do they
> > disappear?
> >
> > The static pointers are scanned by kmemleak, unless they are in the
> > .data.init section (which is removed anyway).
>
> The above reports I picked _are_ transient indeed.
In earlier versions of kmemleak, a block required two successive
classifications as leak before being reported. Maybe I should go back to
this approach.
> Directed more to LKML, every mount (at least on ext4 and BTRFS), we do
> see persistent reports [1], even after scanning, unmount and more
> scanning.
The ext4 leak is real and a patch was proposed here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/15/62
It seems that this patch hasn't been merged into mainline yet (in the
meantime I merged it in my "kmemleak-fixes" branch on
git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6.git)
--
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