On 05/09/13 08:10, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 06.05.2013 22:16, schrieb Stephen Boyd: >> Ok. I tested it and it definitely helps. >> >> ==10728== LEAK SUMMARY: >> ==10728== definitely lost: 316,355,458 bytes in 8,652 blocks >> ==10728== indirectly lost: 1,327,251,588 bytes in 16,180,628 blocks >> ==10728== possibly lost: 677,049,918 bytes in 7,381,801 blocks >> ==10728== still reachable: 9,238,039 bytes in 63,947 blocks >> ==10728== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks >> >> vs. >> >> ==27614== LEAK SUMMARY: >> ==27614== definitely lost: 2,369,692,222 bytes in 20,005,707 blocks >> ==27614== indirectly lost: 829,151,786 bytes in 9,594,715 blocks >> ==27614== possibly lost: 658,069,373 bytes in 6,345,172 blocks >> ==27614== still reachable: 8,806,386 bytes in 50,199 blocks >> ==27614== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > > Thanks, Stephen. I'm going to prepare a series around that patch > which will (hopefully) show that freeing these entries is safe by > passing only const pointers down to the callbacks. It's too late for > 1.8.3, of course, but it shouldn't take another year as most of that > series is done already. :) Yes I started trying to throw const around everywhere but then I just sent out the email in hopes someone had already solved this problem. > > We still have an impressive amount of leakage here. I wonder why > "indirectly lost" increased so much. Do you perhaps still have the > full output of valgrind for the run with the patch applied? I think it increased because the first one ran to completion while the second one failed half way through so it's not an apples to apples comparison. I can re-run with a certain range that is known not to fail if you're interested, but I think you got the idea that the patch helps. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html