From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BA7141D4EE for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 13:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783431131; cv=none; b=QTSm7iH0rgjF/qXa+yIMHoeAY7P+86PzBaa8ABSEC0ZDqjhy1RqF7UbQRqwR8sqOcLm4Xj1zLMOsFLm20r4sd1ZExllkvlLuSr0A4QwpY9blbaD7tTr+I6MFrjp7QSWJJ04R0ot5iNTcJNYSrt2UjuuhnuuuvxtJoFyUkHySJSA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783431131; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rbKpbRWaMwTbv7DPVWQrQaOxQXf3YFYsiQN2h+WPY7w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uPgzpyL+/EsDAvSFnRU+3qL2uYphsOXzYOvBYUih3cGxRZODMR4vDZr84y/e9Nd+VRAYi1HcZDS4b4Fc4EK3qfKJ5cqQCsS6gDbD39BV05ersiaKEqfhjA4s3vGttqjyqWW6Vd7o/akWYxayxaMvshClgTVpNqQo+29hxL4u6vY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=CIYmredU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="CIYmredU" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=kqmdjMmz1VPxcl3AVctgUlq92au3FY3GA87+llr22zo=; b=CIYmredUpb0aJjz11EAHJ5ItbU b3DnUM9lW4Y9p9Vrr0QMWnpfWgDZ/POWKaU5E8IwG4NpzHOVktxNpz9hd49A4XVFZc5kvsxoOwGN0 fkHzV5cGWZIS9u7Tugbqk7o5wXgMBB0Ig9tRUEP3XeAjV89kx6HyZWggGZN8ZBoFkm+HB/6p4VFHr aEHBkOHjasGB6+q2i47X7T6XNd9Pbd4edCmSyAOS1jUiFMazFvgDktZSgFxnCG+/NdX5Kd4F9Smv1 Vck/yfprvisymEmC85M0/24so+i3UHHBEqQWj4ASCThD0flK8AC6P2VL0dZ6xWlBIReGKde6UWMWf /tFaEdpQ==; Received: from authenticated-user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wh5tq-002Dr4-17; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:31:46 +0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 06:31:40 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: K Prateek Nayak Cc: Dietmar Eggemann , Andrea Righi , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Christian Loehle , Phil Auld , Koba Ko , Felix Abecassis , Balbir Singh , Joel Fernandes , Shrikanth Hegde , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kmemleak: sched_domain_shared leaked on asymmetric-capacity + SCHED_CACHE Message-ID: References: <20260509180955.1840064-1-arighi@nvidia.com> <20260509180955.1840064-3-arighi@nvidia.com> <73685ae1-6d90-4799-a1d7-08a1fcf24b8b@amd.com> <73697ae3-f826-4b0e-be05-446976223822@amd.com> <9476c607-92bd-4f98-b9a0-c9ca559c9d91@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao Hello Praateek, On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:41:29AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote: > Hello Dietmar, Breno, > > On 7/6/2026 8:08 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >> Is this the defualt topology before the cpuset? Because > >> min_interval of 8 means there are 8 cPUs in the span and > >> you have 8 CPUs in your machine so there seems to be a > >> single root partition when you captured this. > > > > +1 > > > >> Also does your dmesg have any warnings from topology.c? > >> > >> The only way I can see this triggering is there is a single > >> cpu SD_SHARE_LLC at top which claims all the sd->shared and > >> then you get a SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL on top which too > >> tries to claim a sd->shared but all are already gone. > > > > ? > > I may have found what might be happening. Since the last SD_SHARE_LLC > and the first SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL overlap, > init_sched_domain_shared() for SD_SHARE_LLC might just be overwriting > the assignment from claim_asym_sched_domain_shared() and we are left > with a non-zero refcounted shared that evades claim_allocations() but > is not used anywhere either. > > Breno, could you try the below diff: Sure, I've tested it and I don't see the kmemleak report anymore, that solved the issue I've raised. Feel free to include the following if you are planning to send it to the list: Tested-by: Breno Leitao