>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:49:44PM +0100, majianpeng wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/kmemleak.c | 8 +-------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> index b1525db..f0ece93 100644
>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> @@ -1225,22 +1225,16 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
>> * from inside the loop. The kmemleak objects cannot be freed from
>> * outside the loop because their use_count was incremented.
>> */
>> - object = list_entry(gray_list.next, typeof(*object), gray_list);
>> - while (&object->gray_list != &gray_list) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(object, tmp, &gray_list, gray_list) {
>> cond_resched();
>>
>> /* may add new objects to the list */
>> if (!scan_should_stop())
>> scan_object(object);
>>
>> - tmp = list_entry(object->gray_list.next, typeof(*object),
>> - gray_list);
>> -
>> /* remove the object from the list and release it */
>> list_del(&object->gray_list);
>> put_object(object);
>> -
>> - object = tmp;
>> }
>> WARN_ON(!list_empty(&gray_list));
>
>I tried this patch for a few days and I hit the WARN_ON after the loop.
>During scanning, new entries may be added at the end of the loop but we
>need to loop until all the entries have been removed. I probably had a
>reason why I had the 'while' loop.
>
>The key difference is that list_for_each_entry_safe() gets the next
>entry (n or tmp above) before scan_object() and it may hit the end of
>the list. However, scan_object() may do a list_add_tail(&gray_list)
>hence we need to get the next entry after this function.
>
>Basically list_for_each_entry_safe() is not safe with tail additions.
>I'll revert this patch (hasn't reached mainline anyway).
>
Ok, i see.
Thanks!
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Catalin?韬{.n???檩jg???a?旃???)钋???骅w+h?璀?ｙ/i?⒏??⒎???Щ ??m?? ?)钋???痂?^??觥??ザ?v???O璁?f??i?⒏?