Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4 00/10] Kernel memory leak detector 0.9

From: Michal Piotrowski
Date: Thu Aug 17 2006 - 10:46:16 EST

On 17/08/06, Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Catalin,

On 17/08/06, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13/08/06, Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It's kmemleak 0.9 issue. I have tested kmemleak 0.8 on 2.6.18-rc1and
> > 2.6.18-rc2. I haven't seen this before.
> it looks like it was caused by commit
> fc818301a8a39fedd7f0a71f878f29130c72193d where free_block() now calls
> slab_destroy() with l3->list_lock held.

I'll revert this commit.

> The prio_tree use (which doesn't alloc memory) instead of the
> radix_tree is about 4 times slower when scanning the memory and I
> don't think I'll use it.
> It leaves me with the options of either implementing my own memory
> allocator based on pages

[MODSLAB 7/7] A slab allocator: Page Slab allocator
"The page slab is a specialized slab allocator that can only handle
page order size object. It directly uses the page allocator to
track the objects and can therefore avoid the overhead of the

(including a simple hash table instead of
> radix tree) or fix the locking in kmemleak so that memory allocations
> happen without memleak_lock held. The latter is a bit complicated as
> well since any slab allocation causes a re-entrance into kmemleak.
> Any other suggestions?

Please talk with Christoph Lameter, he is working on Modular Slab.
Maybe he can help with this problem.

> Thanks.
> --
> Catalin


Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at