On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 17:56 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:01 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > We don't actually want kmemleak to track the lmb allocations, so we > > > pass min_count as 0. However telling kmemleak about lmb allocations > > > allows it to scan that memory for pointers to other memory that is > > > tracked by kmemleak, ie. slab allocations etc. > > > > Looks alright to me (though I haven't tested it). You can add a > > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > > Actually, Milton pointed to me that we may not want to allow all > LMB chunks to be scanned by kmemleaks, things like the DART hole > that's taken out of the linear mapping for example may need to > be avoided, though I'm not sure what would be the right way to > do it.
I suspect there are more blocks to be scanned than those that shouldn't, so maybe ignore the latter explicitly using kmemleak_ignore(). This was raised recently on x86_64 as well which has a memory hole for some aperture - http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/13/237. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
