[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140704193831.GA27490@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 21:38:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: __trace_remove_event_dirs() leaks file->filter ? (Was:
probe_event_disable()->synchronize_sched())
On 07/04, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2014/07/04 2:01), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm. Off-topic, but it seems that instance_rmdir() leaks the memory? Say,
> >> file->filter?
> >
> > Perhaps I am totally confused, but don't we need something like the patch
> > below? I'll try to recheck later...
> >
> > Better yet, we can probably move destroy_preds() from event_remove() to
> > remove_event_file_dir()... not sure, need to recheck.
>
> Ah, yes, it seems event_remove releases preds, and remove_event_file_dir()
> called from event_trace_del_tracer() doesn't release it.
>
> BTW, with following patch, we'd better remove destroy_preds() from
> event_remove() and add destroy_call_preds() at the very last of the
> function.
Yes, please see "Better yet" above. And probably we can simply remove
destroy_preds() after that.
But I still need to reccheck, didn't have time today. And you know what?
call->filter logic looks broken too ;)
Oleg.
--
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