On 9/1/22 03:26, Feng Tang wrote:
> 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, squashed your patch there and pushed new for-next.
> Thanks,
> Feng
>
