Hi Pekka,
On 11/07/06, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/11/06, Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 85c2e03..2752272 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -2967,6 +2967,7 @@ #endif
> STATS_INC_ALLOCMISS(cachep);
> objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, flags);
> }
> + memleak_erase(&ac->entry[ac->avail]);
> return objp;
> }
Can't we tell the GC not to scan any of the array cache structs? You
could put that in alloc_arraycache(), I think.
Yes, we can. I'll give it a try before updating the patches.
> @@ -3209,7 +3211,11 @@ static void __cache_free(struct kmem_cac
> */
> void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
> {
> - return __cache_alloc(cachep, flags, __builtin_return_address(0));
> + void *ptr = __cache_alloc(cachep, flags, __builtin_return_address(0));
> +
> + memleak_alloc(ptr, obj_size(cachep), 1);
Can you move memleak_alloc() call to __cache_alloc() instead to avoid
duplication?
It might clutter the code because __cache_alloc is used by kmalloc as
well and the exact size information is lost. It would be to
explicitely give the type information to kmemleak in kmalloc and have
memleak_alloc called in __cache_alloc (with slight overhead of calling
kmemleak functions twice). The other option is to pass an extra
argument (guessed typeid) to __cache_alloc but this means adding extra
ifdefs.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
