Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemleak tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@linux360.ro> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:27:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Catalin,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in mm/slob.c
> > between commit 3eae2cb24a96509e0a38cc48dc1538a2826f4e33 ("kmemtrace: SLOB
> > hooks") from the ftrace tree and commit
> > 19f8f253a808d317d34ccbbad3b15a1a8d2ac444 ("kmemleak: Add the slob memory
> > allocation/freeing hooks") from the kmemleak tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
> > 
> > diff --cc mm/slob.c
> > index 4d1c0fc,30b870f..0000000
> > --- a/mm/slob.c
> > +++ b/mm/slob.c
> > @@@ -489,12 -482,9 +490,13 @@@ void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_
> >   			page = virt_to_page(ret);
> >   			page->private = size;
> >   		}
> >  +
> >  +		kmemtrace_mark_alloc_node(KMEMTRACE_TYPE_KMALLOC,
> >  +					  _RET_IP_, ret,
> >  +					  size, PAGE_SIZE << order, gfp, node);
> >   	}
> >   
> > + 	kmemleak_alloc(ret, size, 1, gfp);
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kmalloc_node);
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Perhaps kmemleak could attach to the kmemtrace traces. I'm currently 
> working on moving kmemtrace w/ ftrace to tracepoints instead of markers, 
> it'll hit the list soon. We'll use generic names for tracepoints, like 
> trace_kmalloc_node(). If this sounds okay, tell me and I'll relocate the 
> tracepoints definitions to a slab heades. All you'll need to do is 
> attach to probes using register_trace_*(), same as kmemtrace does.

yes, that sounds worthwile to do.

	Ingo