On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:38 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -5138,11 +5146,12 @@ static int add_location(struct loc_track *t, struct kmem_cache *s,
> > if (pos == end)
> > break;
> >
> > - caddr = t->loc[pos].addr;
> > - chandle = t->loc[pos].handle;
> > - if ((track->addr == caddr) && (handle == chandle)) {
> > + l = &t->loc[pos];
> > + caddr = l->addr;
> > + chandle = l->handle;
> > + if ((track->addr == caddr) && (handle == chandle) &&
> > + (track->waste == l->waste)) {
> >
> > - l = &t->loc[pos];
> > l->count++;
> > if (track->when) {
> > l->sum_time += age;
> > @@ -5190,6 +5199,7 @@ static int add_location(struct loc_track *t, struct kmem_cache *s,
> > l->min_pid = track->pid;
> > l->max_pid = track->pid;
> > l->handle = handle;
> > + l->waste = track->waste;
>
> I think this may be fooled when there are different wastes values
> from same caller (i.e. when a kmalloc_track_caller() is used.)
> because the array is sorted by caller address, but not sorted by waste.
>
> And writing this I noticed that it already can be fooled now :)
> It's also not sorted by handle.
I misread the code. it's not fooled now. the array is also sorted by handle.
But will be fooled after this patch.
> --
> Thanks,
> Hyeonggon
