Hi Catalin,
On 17/08/06, Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/08/06, Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's kmemleak 0.9 issue. I have tested kmemleak 0.8 on 2.6.18-rc1and
> 2.6.18-rc2. I haven't seen this before.
it looks like it was caused by commit
fc818301a8a39fedd7f0a71f878f29130c72193d where free_block() now calls
slab_destroy() with l3->list_lock held.
I'll revert this commit.
The prio_tree use (which doesn't alloc memory) instead of the
radix_tree is about 4 times slower when scanning the memory and I
don't think I'll use it.
It leaves me with the options of either implementing my own memory
allocator based on pages (including a simple hash table instead of
radix tree) or fix the locking in kmemleak so that memory allocations
happen without memleak_lock held. The latter is a bit complicated as
well since any slab allocation causes a re-entrance into kmemleak.
Any other suggestions?
Please talk with Christoph Lameter, he is working on Modular Slab.
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0608.1/0951.html
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0608.2/0030.html
Maybe he can help with this problem.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
-
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]
