![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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). The stack traces look fine without unwind, and at a glance looked fine with unwind as well, so I speculate you must be using save_stack_trace properly. The only difference I noticed was the incredible speed difference. I gave up on getting to run level 5 with unwind, getting to level 2 took ages, and the box was horribly slow at everything. -Mike - 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 09:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||