Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4 00/10] Kernel memory leak detector 0.9

[Catalin Marinas]

On 15/08/06, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14/08/06, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The kmemleak+slab locking is a bit complicated because memleak itself
> > needs to allocate memory and avoid recursive calls to it (the
> > pointer_cache and the radix_tree allocations). The kmemleak-related
> > allocations are not tracked by kmemleak.
> >
> > I see the following solutions:
> >
> > 1. acquire the memleak_lock at the beginning of an alloc/free function
> > and release it when finished while allowing recursive/nested calls
> > (and only call the memleak_* functions during the outermost lock).
> > This would mean ignoring the off-slab management allocations as these
> > would lead to deadlock because of the recursive call into kmemleak.
> > This locking should be placed around cache_reap() as well (actually,
> > around all the entry points in the mm/slab.c file).
>
> This would actually work because the slab allocation functions may sleep.

I meant "would *not*" above.

--
Catalin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/