[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311702244.3526.100.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:44:04 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/kmemcheck: No need to annotate base anymore
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 13:41 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > We can still fall back to vmalloc allocation (even though it is really
> > not probable that alloc_pages_exact_nid would fail that early).
> > Is vmalloc a problem here? (sorry I am not familiar with kmemleak
> > internals) The original code didn't distinguish kmalloc vs. vmalloc.
> >
>
> Good question. I forgot to add the maintainer of kmemleak to the Cc
> list. (fixed here).
Depending on the answer, I suspect that the result will be to keep the
not_leak call, and just add a call directly to kmemleak_alloc() in the
page_alloc() side.
I'll have a patch ready on hand when we find out :)
-- Steve
--
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