Re: [PATCH 11/19] perf record: Release resources at exit
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Aug 02 2010 - 05:17:37 EST
* Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:54:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:08:46PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > So that we can reduce the noise on valgrind when looking for memory
> > > > leaks.
> > >
> > > Really? That's rather crappy of valgrind. exit is well defined to release
> > > resources and that's often a more efficient way to do it It finds and
> > > batches things a lot better, eg. it can avoid all TLB flushing of freeing
> > > memory that munmap requires.
> > That's certainly true but there's no valgrind crappiness here: valgrind simply
> > can do a better job of finding leaks if there's a well defined "all resources
> > the app still knows about are freed now" point.
> "noise" sounds like false positives though. [...]
Every predictive bug detection scheme is open to the potential of false
positives. I've yet to see a complex one that is 100% false positive free.
> [...] Certainly if this is instead allows valgrind to run in a particular
> mode that assumes no application resources consumed at exit(2) time, I
> wouldn't call it crappy :)
Most apps free their stuff before they exit - i do it in all my own C apps.
That is generally useful: for example it makes it easier to thread a program
later on - when exit() becomes pthread_exit() and a silent leak turns into a
Hence Valgrind checking for exit() by default looks useful to me.
> But you could equally sprinkle in other valgrind specific annotations or
> semantics at various points in the code to improve its coverage, no?
Yeah, and exit() sounds like a pretty convenient point, right? That's the
point where all resources are inactive hence a scan for leaks is expected to
be the most efficient in finding real leaks.
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/