On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:01:31AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > unreferenced object 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
> > > > > > > > > comm "fsstress", pid 14590, jiffies 4295191259 (age
> > > > > > > > >
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:01:31AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
unreferenced object 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
comm fsstress, pid 14590, jiffies 4295191259 (age
706.308s)
hex dump (first
2014-05-08 (목), 17:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:53:30PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > BTW, is it safe to have a union overlapping node->parent and
> > > node->rcu_head.next? I'm still staring at
2014-05-08 (목), 16:29 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > 2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100, Catalin
On 8 May 2014, at 18:52, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 08,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:53:30PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > BTW, is it safe to have a union overlapping node->parent and
> > node->rcu_head.next? I'm still staring at the radix-tree code but a
> > scenario I have in mind
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > 2014-05-08 (목), 10:26
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > 2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
> > > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:16:51PM
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 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 Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> 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:
> >
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 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
> > > >
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 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
> > > comm "fsstress", pid 14590, jiffies 4295191259 (age
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 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
comm fsstress, pid 14590, jiffies 4295191259 (age 706.308s)
hex
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 0x880004226da0 (size 576):
comm fsstress,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
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:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
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
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:16:51PM +0900, Jaegeuk
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:53:30PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
BTW, is it safe to have a union overlapping node-parent and
node-rcu_head.next? I'm still staring at the radix-tree code but a
scenario I have in mind is that
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at
On 8 May 2014, at 18:52, Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at
2014-05-08 (목), 16:29 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:37:40AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
2014-05-08 (목), 10:26 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
2014-05-08 (목), 17:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:53:30PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
BTW, is it safe to have a union overlapping node-parent and
node-rcu_head.next? I'm still staring at the
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> And then when I tested again with Catalin's patch, it still throws the
> following warning.
> Is it false alarm?
BTW, you can try this kmemleak branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cmarinas/linux-aarch64.git
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
And then when I tested again with Catalin's patch, it still throws the
following warning.
Is it false alarm?
BTW, you can try this kmemleak branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cmarinas/linux-aarch64.git
kmemleak
Hi Johannes and Catalin,
Actually bisecting is the best way, but I failed to run fsstress with
early 3.15-rcX due to BUG_ONs in mm; recently it seems that most of
there-in issues have been resolved.
So I pulled the linus tree having:
commit 38583f095c5a8138ae2a1c9173d0fd8a9f10e8aa
Merge:
Hi Johannes and Catalin,
Actually bisecting is the best way, but I failed to run fsstress with
early 3.15-rcX due to BUG_ONs in mm; recently it seems that most of
there-in issues have been resolved.
So I pulled the linus tree having:
commit 38583f095c5a8138ae2a1c9173d0fd8a9f10e8aa
Merge:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:06:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:40AM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 2. Bug
> > This is one of the results, but all the results indicate
> > __radix_tree_preload.
> >
> > unreferenced object 0x88002ae2a238 (size 576):
> > comm
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:40AM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> 2. Bug
> This is one of the results, but all the results indicate
> __radix_tree_preload.
>
> unreferenced object 0x88002ae2a238 (size 576):
> comm "fsstress", pid 25019, jiffies 4295651360 (age 2276.104s)
> hex dump (first 32
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:40AM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
2. Bug
This is one of the results, but all the results indicate
__radix_tree_preload.
unreferenced object 0x88002ae2a238 (size 576):
comm fsstress, pid 25019, jiffies 4295651360 (age 2276.104s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
01
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:06:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:40AM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
2. Bug
This is one of the results, but all the results indicate
__radix_tree_preload.
unreferenced object 0x88002ae2a238 (size 576):
comm fsstress, pid
Hi mm folks,
When I was testing recent linus tree, I got several kmemleaks as below.
Could any of you guys guide how to fix this?
Thanks,
0. Test
- fsstress on f2fs
1. Kernel version
commit 4d0fa8a0f01272d4de33704f20303dcecdb55df1
Merge: 39bfe90 b5539fa
Author: Linus Torvalds
Date: Tue Apr
Hi mm folks,
When I was testing recent linus tree, I got several kmemleaks as below.
Could any of you guys guide how to fix this?
Thanks,
0. Test
- fsstress on f2fs
1. Kernel version
commit 4d0fa8a0f01272d4de33704f20303dcecdb55df1
Merge: 39bfe90 b5539fa
Author: Linus Torvalds
34 matches
Mail list logo