Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Shouldn't that include SLUB? I've been using SLAB. Looking in SLUB it's much less obvious where to insert the tracepoint. check_bytes_and_report() maybe? > I'm surprised to see SLAB used for debugging refcounting these days, The refcount debugging in question is not in SLAB, but rather in rxrpc; it's just SLAB detected the resulting memory corruption. rxrpc has tracepoints that track the refcounting, but SLAB printks a message to indicate the corruption and it's a bit tricky to work out where the printk happened with respect to the trace. > as the SLUB debugging features are vastly superior, while SLAB ones are > being sometimes found to be broken for years and removed. If SLUB is better than SLAB, shouldn't SLAB be removed? David
