[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyGQS0Af7Vu7KPAj@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:26:51 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ke.wang@...soc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: introduce __GFP_TRACKLEAK to track in-kernel
allocation
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:37:01AM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> ---
> v2: code update
> v3: update code and Documentation
This is really not good enough. What changed?
The documentation is also not good enough. It needs to mention:
- This cannot be used for GFP_HIGHMEM allocations.
- This cannot be used for pages which are mapped into userspace.
I also still want to see selftests. order-0, order-N (with and without
__GFP_COMP). What happens if you allocate an order-N page without
GFP_COMP, take an extra ref on the first page, call free_pages() and
then one of the recently-freed pages is allocated again while you still
have the reference on the first page?
I believe Andrew also suggested that
if (PageTrackleak(page))
become always-false if the CONFIG option is disabled.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
This is the wrong CONFIG option, it should be CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK.
Add to this the very real question of how useful is this, and I'm not
getting warm fuzzy feelings about where this patchset is heading.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists