On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 10:44:11PM +0800, patrick wang wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:20 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 19:31:58 +0800 Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Kmemleak recently added a rbtree to store the objects > > > allocted with physical address. Those objects can't be > > > freed with kmemleak_free(). Use kmemleak_ignore_phys() > > > instead of kmemleak_free() for those objects. > > > > Thanks. What are the user-visible runtime effects of this? > > According to the comments, percpu allocations are tracked > by kmemleak separately. Kmemleak_free() was used to avoid > the unnecessary tracking. If kmemleak_free() fails, those > objects would be scanned by kmemleak, which is unnecessary > but shouldn't lead to other effects. > > I didn't observe any anomaly without this commit on riscv > and arm64. What could happen is an increased rate of false negatives as it scans more than necessary. > > And are we able to identify a commit for the Fixes: line? > > 0c24e061196c (mm: kmemleak: add rbtree and store physical > address for objects allocated with PA) > Current in mm-stable. I think we could add a Fixes line for the above. For the patch: Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
