Re: [2.6.35-rc6 patch] increase kmemleak robustness at boot

[Daniel J Blueman]

On 28 July 2010 17:49, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>>
>> I've consistently been experiencing kmemleak exhaust it's 400-entry
>> early-boot buffer and disabling itself; there have been reports of
>> this also, and I'm finding this on x86-64 with various debug options
>> enabled.
>>
>> If we issue a warning and allow the buffer to wrap, we don't need to
>> hit the kill-switch. While we lose track of some early potential
>> leaks, it's better than no functionality.
>>
>> Let me know if it's acceptable, and many thanks for such an excellent
>> tool,
>
> Is it just potential leaks that we lose or can this cause false positives?

I don't get any false positives having had the buffer wrap a number of
times at early-boot; not to say this can't cause any.

It seems that some kernel debug options are doing heavy early-boot
allocations, so getting any false-positives would likely be a triple
edge case.

Thanks,
  Daniel
-- 
Daniel J Blueman
--
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/