On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Martin Mokrejs wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Martin Mokrejs wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> I am not sure how should I interpret this but I am attaching the whole kmemleak file > >> I have after > >> # w > >> 23:02:23 up 2 days, 2:43, 16 users, load average: 2.17, 1.85, 1.51 > >> [cut] > >> > >> I have several SATA drives connected over USB 2 and 3 (and mounted) but am not > >> accessing them. > > > > Whether or not the drives are being accessed probably doesn't matter > > much. The mere fact that they are connected can make a difference. > > Does kmemleak report the same problems after the drives are unplugged? > > Does the number of leaked memory regions increase if you plug in and > > unplug a drive repeatedly? > > I just plugged in one drive, unconnected, a re-connected back again. > Right after that the kmemleak file did not show any changes but that is > probably updated by a background process? But, after some minutes, here the > are few more! I am attaching the diff showing the timestamps. > > Please note that the number increased once while do physical (dis)connections > happened meanwhile (unless that can be explained by the time lag of the background > scanning before it reports the problem): > > [81036.084077] kmemleak: 17 new suspected memory leaks (see /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak) > [139512.014429] kmemleak: 11 new suspected memory leaks (see /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak) Don't worry about what kmemleak says when the drives are plugged in. See what it says when all the USB drives are unplugged. That's what matters. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
