[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275487949.23442.9.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:12:29 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Hiroshi DOYU <Hiroshi.DOYU@...ia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kmemleak: Fix false positive with special scan
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:34 +0100, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
> From: ext Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Can we not add a new prio tree (or just use the existing one) for
> > pointer aliases? The advantage is that you only have a single function
> > to call, something like kmemleak_add_alias() and you do it at the point
> > the value was converted.
>
> Actually I considered the above aliasing a little bit but I gave up
> soon.
>
> I was afraid that this method might consume way more memory since this
> just adds another member for "struct kmemleak_object", but adding a
> single member for all objects. The number of kmemleak_object is
> usually numerous.
We could use a different tree with a "struct kmemleak_alias" structure
which is much smaller. Something like below:
struct kmemleak_alias {
struct list_head alias_list;
struct prio_tree_node tree_node;
struct kmemleak_object *object;
}
And an alias_list member would be added to kmemleak_object as well.
Would the alias tree need to allow overlapping? Like different IOMMU
mappings with the same address (but pointing to different physical
memory).
--
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