Re: extent-patch and overview of what is supposed to follow

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 11:08:31AM +0200, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> On 04/01/11 17:20, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:43:50AM -0400, Allen Briggs wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 08:35:52AM +0200, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> >>> this is a part of the changes to the kernel memory management.
> >>> It's a changing the subr_extent to use kmem(9) instead of malloc(9)
> >>> essentially removing the MALLOC_TYPE from it.
> >> Are there tools for figuring out where memory might be leaking?
> >> The MALLOC_TYPE is not ideal for that but can be at least provide
> >> some clue.
> > Seconded. It has proven to be very helpfull at times
> >
> 
> Yes, I can see the point here but with large parts of memory allocation
> being moved to kmem any way the point doesn't seem to be very strong to me.

Why ? A leak is still a leak

> But tracing who is doing the allocation is definitely something worse
> having, tracing this with dtrace should be possible as Andrew pointed
> out end january, when I made the patch public.

AFAIK dtrace doesn't work on non-modular kernels ...

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--