lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: + page-owner-tracking.patch added to -mm tree
From
Date
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-06 09:15    [W:0.570 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site