RE: [PATCH] slub: Proper kmemleak tracking if CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUGdisabled

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Bird, Tim wrote:

> The problem child is actually the unconditional call to kmemleak_alloc()
> in kmalloc_large_node() (in slub.c).  The problem comes because that call
> is unconditional on CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG but the kmemleak
> calls in the hook routines are conditional on CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG.
> So if you have CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=n but CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y,
> you get the false reports.

Right. You need to put the #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG around the hooks that
need it in the function itself instead of disabling the whole function if
CONFIG_SLUB_DEUBG is not set.

> Now, there are kmemleak calls in kmalloc_large_node() and kfree() that don't
> follow the "hook" pattern.  Should these be moved to 'hook' routines, to keep
> all the checks in the hooks?

That would be great.

> Personally, I like the idea of keeping bookeeping/tracing/debug stuff in hook
> routines.  I also like de-coupling CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK,
> but maybe others have a different opinon.  Unless someone speaks up, we'll
> move the the currently in-function kmemleak calls into hooks, and all of the
> kmemleak stuff out from under CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG.
> We'll have to see if the ifdefs get a little messy.

Decouple of you want. CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG may duplicate what you already do.

--
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/