On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Catalin Marinas >> <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 02:30 +0100, Dave Young wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:19:02 +0800 >>>> > Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> > Manually bisected mm patches, the memleak caused by following patch: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > mm-extend-ksm-refcounts-to-the-anon_vma-root.patch >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> So I guess the refcount break, either drop-without-get or over-drop >>>> > >>>> > I'm guessing I did not run the kernel with enough debug options enabled >>>> > when I tested my patches... >>>> > >>>> > Dave & Catalin, thank you for tracking this down. >>>> > >>>> > Dave, does the below patch fix your issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, it fixed the issue. Thanks. >>> >>> Thanks for investigating this issue. >>> >>> BTW, without my kmemleak nobootmem patch (and CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM enabled), >>> do you get other leaks (false positives). >> >> I didn't see difference before/after apply your patch, how to test >> specific to bootmem? > > With Rik's patch applied and CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM enabled, do you get any > false postives if my kmemleak patch isn't applied? No more, except a few acpi issue which always there > > Thanks. > > -- > Catalin > -- Regards dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>