On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 16/10/06, Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:07 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > Kmemleak introduces some overhead but shouldn't be that bad.
> > > DEBUG_SLAB also introduces an overhead by erasing the data in the
> > > allocated blocks.
> >
> > 2.6.18 with your rc6 patch booted normally with stack unwind enabled.
>
> The only difference is that kmemleak now uses save_stack_trace() to
> generate the call chain. In the previous versions I implemented a
> simple stack backtrace myself, with the disadvantage that it only
> worked on ARM and x86.
>
> I think kmemleak should use the common stack trace API and investigate
> why it is slower (either save_stack_trace is slower with stack unwind
> enabled or kmemleak doesn't use these functions properly).
The stack traces look fine without unwind, and at a glance looked fine
with unwind as well, so I speculate you must be using save_stack_trace
properly. The only difference I noticed was the incredible speed
difference. I gave up on getting to run level 5 with unwind, getting to
level 2 took ages, and the box was horribly slow at everything.
-Mike
-
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]
