On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez<mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> I have an assorted collection of kmemleak reports for acpi, ext4 and >>>>>>> tty, not sure how to read these yet to fix so figure I'd at least post >>>>>>> them. To reproduce I can just dd=/dev/zero to some big file and played >>>>>>> some video. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you do a few echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak, do they >>>>>> disappear (i.e. transient false positives)? >>>>> >>>>> Sure, I will once on rc8. >>>>> >>>>>> Which kernel version is this? >>>>> >>>>> v2.6.31-rc7-33172-gf4a9f9a >>>>> >>>>> This is from wireless-testing, which has wireless patches on top of >>>>> rc7. John just rebased to rc8 so will give that a shot at work. >>>>> >>>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff88003e0015c0 (size 64): >>>>>>> comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294892352 >>>>>>> backtrace: >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81121fad>] create_object+0x13d/0x2d0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81122265>] kmemleak_alloc+0x25/0x60 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81118a03>] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x193/0x200 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8152509e>] process_zones+0x70/0x1cd >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81525230>] pageset_cpuup_callback+0x35/0x92 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8152c9b7>] notifier_call_chain+0x47/0x90 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81078549>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0x10 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81523f25>] _cpu_up+0x75/0x130 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8152403a>] cpu_up+0x5a/0x6a >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8181969e>] kernel_init+0xcc/0x1ba >>>>>>> [<ffffffff810130ca>] child_rip+0xa/0x20 >>>>>>> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't really tell. Maybe a false positive caused by kmemleak not >>>>>> scanning the pgdata node_zones. Can you post your .config file? >>>>> >>>>> Sure, attached. >>>>> >>>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff88003cb5f700 (size 64): >>>>>>> comm "swapper", pid 1, jiffies 4294892459 >>>>>>> backtrace: >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81121fad>] create_object+0x13d/0x2d0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81122265>] kmemleak_alloc+0x25/0x60 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81119f3b>] __kmalloc+0x16b/0x250 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff812bb549>] kzalloc+0xf/0x11 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff812bbb53>] acpi_add_single_object+0x58e/0xd3c >>>>>>> [<ffffffff812bc51c>] acpi_bus_scan+0x125/0x1af >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81842361>] acpi_scan_init+0xc8/0xe9 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8184211c>] acpi_init+0x21f/0x265 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8100a05b>] do_one_initcall+0x4b/0x1b0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81819736>] kernel_init+0x164/0x1ba >>>>>>> [<ffffffff810130ca>] child_rip+0xa/0x20 >>>>>>> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff >>>>>> >>>>>> I get ACPI reports as well and they may be real leaks. However, I >>>>>> didn't have time to analyse the code (pretty complicated reference >>>>>> counting). >>>>> >>>>> Heh OK thanks for reviewing them though. >>>>> >>>>>>> unreferenced object 0xffff880039571800 (size 1024): >>>>>>> comm "exe", pid 1168, jiffies 4294893410 >>>>>>> backtrace: >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81121fad>] create_object+0x13d/0x2d0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81122265>] kmemleak_alloc+0x25/0x60 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81119f3b>] __kmalloc+0x16b/0x250 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff811e1d71>] ext4_mb_init+0x1a1/0x590 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff811d2da3>] ext4_fill_super+0x1df3/0x26c0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8112774f>] get_sb_bdev+0x16f/0x1b0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff811c8fd3>] ext4_get_sb+0x13/0x20 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81127216>] vfs_kern_mount+0x76/0x180 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8112738d>] do_kern_mount+0x4d/0x130 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8113fc57>] do_mount+0x307/0x8b0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff8114028f>] sys_mount+0x8f/0xe0 >>>>>>> [<ffffffff81011f02>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >>>>>>> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff >>>>>> >>>>>> The ext4 reports are real leaks and patch was posted here - >>>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/15/62. However, it hasn't been merged into >>>>>> mainline yet (I cc'ed Aneesh). >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch is merged in my "kmemleak-fixes" branch on >>>>>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6.git. >>>>> >>>>> Will try to suck them out and try them. >>>> >>>> OK -- tested rc8 + a pull of your tree into mine. The bootup was >>>> really slow and something was just not going right. After a while >>>> memleak complained it had 8 kmemleak logs but I was not able to get my >>>> system usable enough to cat the file. >>>> >>>> In cases like these I wish I would hookup my ctrl-alt-del to kexec() a >>>> safe kernel. >>>> >>>> After a long period of time it seems X wished it would start, it tried >>>> and then flashed back to the tty. This kept repeating in a loop. >>>> >>>> I am not sure if the culprit was rc8 or the kmemleak branch merge -- >>>> I'll find out after I boot into rc8 in a few. >>> >>> rc8 busted my bootup, the issues are present with just >>> wireless-testing. I highly doubt the issues are wireless-testing >>> related so I will not bisect there. Since I am unable to get anything >>> useful from the kernel to determine what may have gone sour, any >>> suggestions on a path to bisect, or should I just do the whole tree? >> >> I tried 2.6.31-rc8 from hpa's linux-2.6-allstable.git tree instead of >> Linus [1] as I already had that tree, git describe says: >> >> v2.6.31-rc8-15-gadda766 >> >> Testing this would be the same as testing Linus' blessed rc8 -- >> correct me I'm wrong. Contrary to what I expected this tree with the >> same config works well! >> >> I have compiled a fresh checkout of wireless-testing origin/master to >> double check the issue and it is indeed only present on >> wireless-testing. A diff stat between John's merge of 2.6.31-rc8 and >> current master branch on wireless-testing [2] doesn't reveal much >> other than wireless specific stuff, as expected, so it seems this may >> after all be introduced in a recent patches in wireless-testing. I >> still find this a bit odd given I see no others reporting major >> issues. My boot doesn't go very far, it stalls for a while after input >> devices are being detected, then it spits out a kmemleak warning about >> 13 kmemleaks. Here's a picture [3]. I didn't bother waiting as I did >> last time for X to try to come up, something is really wrong. I'll >> bisect wireless-testing in the morning, starting with a good marker at >> merge-2009-08-28 as that is when John pulled 2.6.31-rc8 (and I confirm >> a diff stat between that and v2.6.31-rc8 yields nothing as it should) >> and current master as the bad marker. I have 9 steps to go, will leave >> first step compiling overnight. >> >> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/hpa/linux-2.6-allstable.git >> [2] git diff --stat merge-2009-08-28..HEAD >> [3] http://bombadil.infradead.org/~mcgrof/images/2009/08/lag-wl-2009-08-31.jpg >> [4] git diff --stat merge-2009-08-28..v2.6.31-rc8 > > Hah, well this makes no sense: > > mcgrof@tux ~/wireless-testing (git::(no branch))$ git bisect bad > a4e774ca75e5f2d8347b4d9746a2e0a9a4fc521b is first bad commit > commit a4e774ca75e5f2d8347b4d9746a2e0a9a4fc521b > Author: John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed Feb 27 16:04:18 2008 -0500 > > Add localversion-wireless to identify builds from this tree. > > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > :000000 100644 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 6a05d60db3b21d9c0a0b93b831c6ea453dc98785 A localversion-wireless > > I'll try a fresh branch on merge-2009-08-28 .. OK I tried this, I even 'rm -rf * ; git checkout -f' and .. merge-2009-08-28 tag yields the same issues, long lag upon bootup with some kmemleaks I cannot even get to check. So somehow something is different between merge-2009-08-28 and Linus' rc8. This is just bizarre so to be even safer I'm just going to do a fresh git clone on wireless-testing. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
