[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111004091314.GF15637@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 02:13:14 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Huajun Li <huajun.li.lee@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] kmemleak: Handle percpu memory allocation
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:04:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > The percpu part looks fine to me but I don't know how kmemleak works
> > to judge whether the kmemleak part is okay or not. This just avoids
> > false positives from slab and would still require bumping up the early
> > log memory as # of cpus increases, right?
>
> No, there is only one kmemleak call for each __percpu pointer (to the
> specific kmemleak_*_percpu function). The kmemleak expands the percpu
> pointer into corresponding blocks for each cpu but the early log only
> stores a single call.
Hmmm... but the following definitely seems O(#PCPU_ALLOCS * #CPUS)?
What am I missing?
+/*
+ * Log an early allocated block and populate the stack trace.
+ */
+static void early_alloc_percpu(struct early_log *log)
+{
+ unsigned int cpu;
+ const void __percpu *ptr = log->ptr;
+
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ log->ptr = per_cpu_ptr(ptr, cpu);
+ early_alloc(log);
+ }
+}
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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