2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:16:51PM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 2014-05-07 (수), 12:39 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > unreferenced object 0xffff880004226da0 (size 576):
> > > > comm "fsstress", pid 14590, jiffies 4295191259 (age 706.308s)
> > > > hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> > > > 01 00 00 00 81 ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> > > > 50 89 34 81 ff ff ff ff b8 6d 22 04 00 88 ff ff P.4......m".....
> > > > backtrace:
> > > > [<ffffffff816c02e8>] kmemleak_update_trace+0x58/0x80
> > > > [<ffffffff81349517>] radix_tree_node_alloc+0x77/0xa0
> > > > [<ffffffff81349718>] __radix_tree_create+0x1d8/0x230
> > > > [<ffffffff8113286c>] __add_to_page_cache_locked+0x9c/0x1b0
> > > > [<ffffffff811329a8>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x28/0x80
> > > > [<ffffffff81132f58>] grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x98/0xf0
> > > > [<ffffffffa02e4bf4>] f2fs_write_begin+0xb4/0x3c0 [f2fs]
> > > > [<ffffffff81131b77>] generic_perform_write+0xc7/0x1c0
> > > > [<ffffffff81133b7d>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x1cd/0x3f0
> > > > [<ffffffff81133dfe>] generic_file_aio_write+0x5e/0xe0
> > > > [<ffffffff81195c5a>] do_sync_write+0x5a/0x90
> > > > [<ffffffff811968d2>] vfs_write+0xc2/0x1d0
> > > > [<ffffffff81196daf>] SyS_write+0x4f/0xb0
> > > > [<ffffffff816dead2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> > >
> > > OK, it shows that the allocation happens via add_to_page_cache_locked()
> > > and I guess it's page_cache_tree_insert() which calls
> > > __radix_tree_create() (the latter reusing the preloaded node). I'm not
> > > familiar enough to this code (radix-tree.c and filemap.c) to tell where
> > > the node should have been freed, who keeps track of it.
> > >
> > > At a quick look at the hex dump (assuming that the above leak is struct
> > > radix_tree_node):
> > >
> > > .path = 1
> > > .count = -0x7f (or 0xffffff81 as unsigned int)
> > > union {
> > > {
> > > .parent = NULL
> > > .private_data = 0xffffffff81348950
> > > }
> > > {
> > > .rcu_head.next = NULL
> > > .rcu_head.func = 0xffffffff81348950
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > The count is a bit suspicious.
> > >
> > > From the union, it looks most likely like rcu_head information. Is
> > > radix_tree_node_rcu_free() function at the above rcu_head.func?
>
> Thanks for the config. Could you please confirm that 0xffffffff81348950
> address corresponds to the radix_tree_node_rcu_free() function in your
> System.map (or something else)?
Yap, the address is matched to radix_tree_node_rcu_free().
Thanks,
>
> > > Also, if you run echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak a few times, do
> > > any of the above leaks disappear (in case the above are some transient
> > > rcu freeing reports; normally this shouldn't happen as the objects are
> > > still referred but I'll look at the relevant code once I have your
> > > .config).
> >
> > Once I run the echo, the leaks are still remained.
>
> OK, so they aren't just transient.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Jaegeuk Kim
Samsung
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href