linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning, regression?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:40:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	sedat.dilek@...il.com
cc:	Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: Kernel leaking memory during FS scanning,
 regression?

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > Bruno,
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> >> I need some sleep now, but I will try to come up with sensible
> >> debugging tomorrow unless Paul or someone else beats me to it.
> >
> > can you please add the patch below and provide the /proc/sched_debug
> > output when the problem shows up again?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >        tglx
> >
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched.c |    3 ---
> >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -642,9 +642,6 @@ static void update_rq_clock(struct rq *r
> >  {
> >        s64 delta;
> >
> > -       if (rq->skip_clock_update)
> > -               return;
> > -
> >        delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
> >        rq->clock += delta;
> >        update_rq_clock_task(rq, delta);
> 
> Referring to [1]?
> 
> - Sedat -
> 
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/22/35

Kinda, but I suspect there is more wrong with that optimization thing
for yet unknown reasons.

Thanks,

	tglx