Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc1 00/10] Kernel memory leak detector 0.13
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Wed Dec 27 2006 - 10:11:55 EST
* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/12/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I could also use a simple allocator based on alloc_pages [...]
> >> [...] It could be so simple that it would never need to free any
> >> pages, just grow the size as required and reuse the freed memleak
> >> objects from a list.
> >sounds good to me. Please make it a per-CPU pool. We'll have to fix the
> >locking too, to be per-CPU - memleak_lock is quite a scalability problem
> >right now. (Add a memleak_object->cpu pointer so that freeing can be
> >done on any other CPU as well.)
> I did some simple statistics about allocations happening on one CPU
> and freeing on a different one. On a 4-CPU ARM system (and without IRQ
> balancing and without CONFIG_PREEMPT), these seem to happen in about
> 8-10% of the cases. Do you expect higher figures on other
> As I mentioned in a different e-mail, a way to remove the global hash
> table is to create per-cpu hashes. The only problem is that in these
> 8-10% of the cases, freeing would need to look up the other hashes.
> This would become a problem with a high number of CPUs but I'm not
> sure whether it would overtake the performance issues introduced by
> cacheline ping-ponging in the single-hash case.
i dont think it's worth doing that. So we should either do the current
global lock & hash (bad for scalability), or a pure per-CPU design. The
pure per-CPU design would have to embedd the CPU ID the object is
attached to into the allocated object. If that is not feasible then only
the global hash remains i think.
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/