From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B31DEB6F2B for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:49:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FC9DDD01 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:49:26 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090814.124933.146642945.davem@davemloft.net> To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add kmemleak annotations to lmb.c From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1250236600.24143.34.camel@pasglop> References: <1250178041.14019.34.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <1250236600.24143.34.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:56:40 +1000 > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:01 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> > We don't actually want kmemleak to track the lmb allocations, so we >> > pass min_count as 0. However telling kmemleak about lmb allocations >> > allows it to scan that memory for pointers to other memory that is >> > tracked by kmemleak, ie. slab allocations etc. >> >> Looks alright to me (though I haven't tested it). You can add a >> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas > > Actually, Milton pointed to me that we may not want to allow all > LMB chunks to be scanned by kmemleaks, things like the DART hole > that's taken out of the linear mapping for example may need to > be avoided, though I'm not sure what would be the right way to > do it. I think that annotating LMB for kmemleak may be more problems that it's worth. I can't think of any specific problems like the DART thing on sparc64, but I'm sure that as soon as someone starts trying to test this they'll run into one thing or another :-)