Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: kmemleak - percpu reliability? | From | Johannes Berg <> | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:40:29 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 10:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Kmemleak tries to reduce the false positives to the detriment of more > false negatives.
:)
> One way it does this is by having to scan the memory > twice and no changes to the leaked object (crc32) should have > happened. It also scans the task stacks which is another source of > false/stale pointers. The leak may eventually be reported but you > can't really be precise on when this would be. >
Ok, fair enough. I don't remember if I asked it to scan twice, but anyway, I did convince myself separately (with prints) that it was leaked :)
Thanks for the explanation!
johannes
| |