![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 16/10/06, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:07 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Kmemleak introduces some overhead but shouldn't be that bad. > > DEBUG_SLAB also introduces an overhead by erasing the data in the > > allocated blocks. > > 2.6.18 with your rc6 patch booted normally with stack unwind enabled. The only difference is that kmemleak now uses save_stack_trace() to generate the call chain. In the previous versions I implemented a simple stack backtrace myself, with the disadvantage that it only worked on ARM and x86. I think kmemleak should use the common stack trace API and investigate why it is slower (either save_stack_trace is slower with stack unwind enabled or kmemleak doesn't use these functions properly). -- Catalin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-16 08:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||