On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:19:29PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Trying to chase down memory leaks is much easier when the complete stack > trace is available. > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > It seems like this was initially set to 1 when merged in commit > 3c7b4e6b8be4 (kmemleak: Add the base support) and later increased to 2 > in commit fd6789675ebf (kmemleak: Save the stack trace for early > allocations). Perhaps there was a reason to skip the first few frames, > but I've certainly found it difficult to find leaks when the stack trace > doesn't point at the proper location. > --- > mm/kmemleak.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c > index 3cda50c1e394..55d9ad0f40d4 100644 > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c > @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ static int __save_stack_trace(unsigned long *trace) > stack_trace.max_entries = MAX_TRACE; > stack_trace.nr_entries = 0; > stack_trace.entries = trace; > - stack_trace.skip = 2; > + stack_trace.skip = 0; The reason for this was to avoid listing some of the kmemleak internals (kmemleak_alloc -> create_object -> __save_stack_trace). I can see how inlining of __save_stack_trace() would cause some of the last frames to be missed. I would still prefer to keep it at 1 rather than 0? Which architecture are you testing on? What's the additional trace you get with this patch? -- Catalin -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>