From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601D3C2BD09 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 12:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84213D3FCF for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:11:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 690AC3D3F7E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-3.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19951A0093E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC8721AC6; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 12:11:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1719835872; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UAtXr74j4W/0/SwGNNl3sLMsn0+Co+1AjBZTFdpltxw=; b=WltPoexnCQns8pXD/qh87vgyhdDR3a292GFYFealQHPX416p/SUtXnkUEbqWErPVWr2wai rUBFE34INB9cgYM1hn/jtVmk5KZJWUFaRbcixNDNB88Bh0RRzc+J4+LWVGqcN0OXN6qwID qYsyptN4pvO0vLp3BqLTvuG5xGLYbkM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1719835872; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UAtXr74j4W/0/SwGNNl3sLMsn0+Co+1AjBZTFdpltxw=; b=YjaOq6qlwl18xGYTCuld8xATVMdt+7b6hU/wCXIyzxWzE833w64AH/RTnEuAzX65HOlBiv DQgkDY7R+NbuMRBQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=WltPoexn; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=YjaOq6ql DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1719835872; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UAtXr74j4W/0/SwGNNl3sLMsn0+Co+1AjBZTFdpltxw=; b=WltPoexnCQns8pXD/qh87vgyhdDR3a292GFYFealQHPX416p/SUtXnkUEbqWErPVWr2wai rUBFE34INB9cgYM1hn/jtVmk5KZJWUFaRbcixNDNB88Bh0RRzc+J4+LWVGqcN0OXN6qwID qYsyptN4pvO0vLp3BqLTvuG5xGLYbkM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1719835872; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UAtXr74j4W/0/SwGNNl3sLMsn0+Co+1AjBZTFdpltxw=; b=YjaOq6qlwl18xGYTCuld8xATVMdt+7b6hU/wCXIyzxWzE833w64AH/RTnEuAzX65HOlBiv DQgkDY7R+NbuMRBQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE7213800; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 12:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id DR8yEeCcgmZBRQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 01 Jul 2024 12:11:12 +0000 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:10:59 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[abcd:email,suse.cz:email,suse.cz:dkim]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5FC8721AC6 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] perf_event_open03.c:95: TFAIL: Likely kernel memory leak detected X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: LTP List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > Our automatic jobs keep throwing thus false positives on the daily test. > After checking perf_event_open03.c, it uses the diff of MemAvailable as the > final condition for memory leaks. > > perf_event_open03.c:95: TFAIL: Likely kernel memory leak detected > > I think relying solely on the MemAvailable metric to detect a memory leak > can be imprecise, because available memory can be influenced by various > factors unrelated to the specific code being tested. > > And "/sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak" maybe a good tool for diagnosing memory > leak, > but it is usually disabled on the stock kernel by default, so far I have no > better idea > how to improve that, any suggestions? > > > diff = SAFE_READ_MEMINFO("MemAvailable:"); > > /* leak about 100MB of RAM */ > for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { > ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_FILTER, "filter,0/0@abcd"); > check_progress(i); > } > > diff -= SAFE_READ_MEMINFO("MemAvailable:"); > > if (diff > 50 * 1024) > tst_res(TFAIL, "Likely kernel memory leak detected"); > ... Hmm, maybe we can sample the MemAvailable a few times, e.g. every 20MB leaked and fail the test if we found that most samples have increased the value. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp