[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252426288.12145.112.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:11:28 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, mcgrof@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] kmemleak: add clear command support
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 17:44 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> /*
> + * We use grey instead of black to ensure we can do future
> + * scans on the same objects. If we did not do future scans
> + * these black objects could potentially contain references to
> + * newly allocated objects in the future and we'd end up with
> + * false positives.
> + */
> +static void kmemleak_clear(void)
> +{
> + struct kmemleak_object *object;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + stop_scan_thread();
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
> + if ((object->flags & OBJECT_REPORTED) &&
> + unreferenced_object(object))
> + object->min_count = -1;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + start_scan_thread();
> +}
Do we need to stop and start the scanning thread here? When starting it,
it will trigger a memory scan automatically. I don't think we want this
as a side-effect, so I dropped these lines from your patch.
Also you set min_count to -1 here which means black object, so a
subsequent patch corrects it. I'll set min_count to 0 here in case
anyone bisects over it.
--
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