Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: + page-owner-tracking.patch added to -mm tree | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Date | Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:12:09 +0300 |
| |
Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@linux360.ro> wrote: > >> > >>> One thing I'm not sure about this patch is whether it manages to > >>> record an allocation only once, i.e. does it log a single event > >>> when/if the slab allocator requests pages? Some time ago I sent a > >>> patch adding GFP_NOTRACE to gfp.h, but was rejected. Maybe this > >>> could be a way out of the mess. > >>> > >>> (GFP_NOTRACE would also allow us to log "backend" allocations easily > >>> and treat them separately, for the record, or simply filter them > >>> out.) > >> > >> makes a lot of sense IMO to annotate these via a GFP flag. > > > > Yup, make sense. I think I rejected the patch (did I?) because I > > wanted to fix the slub/slab mess differently but here it makes > > perfect sense. > > I'm wondering how much could be shared with the kmemcheck's > internal-allocation annotations. There's some overlap (although not > a full match) i suspect?
I didn't check but I suspect it's not a perfect match. Kmemcheck wants to know a lot more of the internal workings of an allocator than kmemtrace. That is, we need to deal with constructor special cases for initialization and debugging, for instance.
Pekka
| |