From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758283Ab3FMPvT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:54976 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752312Ab3FMPvS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:51:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:50:40 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Ben Greear Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , netdev Subject: Re: kmemleak reports in kernel 3.9.5+ Message-ID: <20130613155040.GE6530@darko.cambridge.arm.com> References: <51B61982.2050903@candelatech.com> <51B78009.2060808@candelatech.com> <51B7C09D.9020402@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51B7C09D.9020402@candelatech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:28:13AM +0100, Ben Greear wrote: > On 06/11/2013 12:52 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 06/10/2013 03:32 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On 10 June 2013 19:22, Ben Greear wrote: > >>> We had a system go OOM while doing lots of wireless > >>> stations. (System had 8GB of RAM, so I suspect a leak). > >>> > >>> I enabled kmemleak in a 3.9.5 (plus some local patches) and > >>> I see the entries below. Any idea if these are real or not? > > Most of this went away when I disabled SLUB debugging and other > kernel hacking options. The wifi cfg80211_inform_bss_frame > remains, however. I'll go dig some more on that tomorrow...didn't > see anything obvious at first glance. > > But, perhaps there could be some improvements to > kmemleak to make it deal better with the various kernel > debugging features? That's unrelated to the debugging features. Kmemleak cannot find pointers to the allocated objects. They could be real leaks or it simply doesn't scan the right memory where such pointers are stored. The debug objects are stored in a list with the head as static memory, so it should be scanned. -- Catalin