Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
       Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@mail.by>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: kmemleak suggestion (long message)
Message-ID: <20090626084228.GA9789@elte.hu>
References: <20090625221816.GA3480@localdomain.by> <20090626065923.GA14078@elte.hu> <1246004740.30717.3.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <1246004879.27533.18.camel@penberg-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1246004879.27533.18.camel@penberg-laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 998
Lines: 25


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 09:25 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > BTW, this was questioned in the past as well - do we still need 
> > the automatic scanning from a kernel thread? Can a user cron job 
> > just read the kmemleak file?
> 
> I think the kernel thread makes sense so that we get an early 
> warning in syslog. Ingo, what's your take on this from autoqa 
> point of view?

it would be nice to have more relevant messages. Many of the 
messages seem false positives, right? So it would be nice to 
constrain kmemleak into a mode of operation that makes its 
backtraces worth looking at. A message about suspected leaks is 
definitely useful, it just shouldnt be printed too frequently.

	Ingo
--
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/