[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002162528.GD29794@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:25:28 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...ymobile.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bobniev, Roman" <Roman.Bobniev@...ymobile.com>,
Andersson, Björn
<Bjorn.Andersson@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Proper kmemleak tracking if CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
disabled
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:57:12PM +0100, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Bird, Tim wrote:
>
> > The problem child is actually the unconditional call to kmemleak_alloc()
> > in kmalloc_large_node() (in slub.c). The problem comes because that call
> > is unconditional on CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG but the kmemleak
> > calls in the hook routines are conditional on CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG.
> > So if you have CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=n but CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y,
> > you get the false reports.
>
> Right. You need to put the #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG around the hooks that
> need it in the function itself instead of disabling the whole function if
> CONFIG_SLUB_DEUBG is not set.
If we are to do this, we also need a DEBUG_KMEMLEAK dependency,
something like:
depends on (SLUB && SLUB_DEBUG) || !SLUB
or
select SLUB_DEBUG if SLUB
Otherwise you get a lot of false positives.
But with any of the above, #ifdef'ing out kmemleak_* calls wouldn't make
much difference since they would already be no-ops in kmemleak.h with
!SLUB_DEBUG.
> > Personally, I like the idea of keeping bookeeping/tracing/debug stuff in hook
> > routines. I also like de-coupling CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK,
> > but maybe others have a different opinon. Unless someone speaks up, we'll
> > move the the currently in-function kmemleak calls into hooks, and all of the
> > kmemleak stuff out from under CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG.
> > We'll have to see if the ifdefs get a little messy.
>
> Decouple of you want. CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG may duplicate what you already do.
I would prefer the decoupling but I'm fine either way (as long as the
dependencies are in place).
--
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