On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 12:16:17AM +0800, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/31/22 16:21, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 16:04, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe you can include those functions too?
> >>
> >> - __kmem_cache_alloc_node
> >> - kmalloc_[node_]trace, kmalloc_large[_node]
> >
> > This is only required if they are allocator "root" functions when
> > entering allocator code (or may be tail called by a allocator "root"
> > function). Because get_stack_skipnr() looks for one of the listed
> > function prefixes in the whole stack trace.
> >
> > The reason __kmem_cache_free() is now required is because it is tail
> > called by kfree() which disappears from the stack trace if the
> > compiler does tail-call-optimization.
>
> I checked and I have this jmp tail call, yet all test pass here.
> But I assume the right commit to amend is
> 05a1c2e50809 ("mm/sl[au]b: generalize kmalloc subsystem")
>
> Could you Feng maybe verify that that commit is the first that fails the
> tests, and parent commit of that is OK? Thanks.
Yes, 05a1c2e50809 is the first commit that I saw the 4 kfence failed
kunit cases.
Thanks,
Feng
