On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:49 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:56:40 +1000 > > > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:01 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> > We don't actually want kmemleak to track the lmb allocations, so we > >> > pass min_count as 0. However telling kmemleak about lmb allocations > >> > allows it to scan that memory for pointers to other memory that is > >> > tracked by kmemleak, ie. slab allocations etc. > >> > >> Looks alright to me (though I haven't tested it). You can add a > >> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > > > > Actually, Milton pointed to me that we may not want to allow all > > LMB chunks to be scanned by kmemleaks, things like the DART hole > > that's taken out of the linear mapping for example may need to > > be avoided, though I'm not sure what would be the right way to > > do it. > > I think that annotating LMB for kmemleak may be more problems > that it's worth.
BTW, are there many LMB allocations used for storing pointers to other objects? If not, it may be worth just annotating those with kmemleak_alloc() if you get false positives. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev