On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 04:49:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:30:55 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *mem_pool_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
> > > >
> > > > /* try the slab allocator first */
> > > > if (object_cache) {
> > > > - object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > > > + object = kmem_cache_alloc_noprof(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > >
> > > What do these get accounted to, or does this now pop a warning with
> > > CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG?
> >
> > Thanks for the fix, Kees!
> > I'll look into this recursion more closely to see if there is a better
> > way to break it. As a stopgap measure seems ok to me. I also think
> > it's unlikely that one would use both tracking mechanisms on the same
> > system.
>
> I'd really like to start building mm-stable without having to route
> around memprofiling. How about I include Kees's patch in that for now?
Agreed
