Memory leak in I2C (ticket #1898)
mds at mds.gotdns.com
Sat Feb 19 18:39:04 CET 2005
were there any hints in dmesg?
hitting table size limits in i2c-core can also return ENOMEM, but
should also generate a message about increasing I2C_xxx_MAX.
I'd say this is more likely than running your whole box out of memory.
James Olin Oden wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:06:15 +0100 (CET), Jean Delvare
> <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
>>I am moving this to the mailing-list since it is likely to require some
>>investigation before we can find out what's going on, and our current
>>ticket system is not meant for this. (Philip, Axel, where is the new
>>Bugzilla system going?)
> Fine by me.
>>Most things in the i2c core in linux 2.4 are static, so I doubt that
>>there can be a leak in i2c-core itself. i2c-proc OTOH is likely to
>>allocate memory for various things, so this is a candidate. And, as you
>>suggested yourself, individual drivers are candidates as well.
>>Please tell us:
>>* Which i2c drivers you are using.
> Here is the list in the order they are loaded:
> i2c-core i2c-dev i2c-proc i2c-i801 lm87b lm93 eeprom pcf8574
> When I found the appearant memory leak I was only loading and
> unloading modules lm93, eeprom, pcf8574.
>>* What your test script is. Which modules are you cycling exactly, in
>>which order, at which rate? I'd be happy to do the same on my own
>>machines (with different bus and chip drivers) and see if I can
>>reproduce the problem.
> I have attached the script. As far as rate, I was trying to force an
> oops (which I could do with a previous release) so the only throttling
> was system itself. Basically I ran the test sc ript with this shell
> while test.i2c.oops
> As I said earlier in the bug report, its not a likely scenario, but
> IMHO it is a valid test case, if only if it stresses the registration
> deregistration process. On the system I was running this on we have
> a program that kicks off about every 30 seconds and runs the sensors
> command. I don't think you needed that to produce the memory leak,
> but it probably was requried to produce the oops that you guys seemed
> to have fixed.
> The test script is fairly simple. It has an internal list of modules
> that it loads in one order, and then unloads in the opposite order.
> You can pass the arg --modcount=$number to tell it starting from the
> back only load and unload $number modules. You can override its
> default module list by using --modules=$mod1,...,$modN. I use depmod
> to load and unload the modules, if dependent modules are not loaded
> they should be loaded (not tested that though).
>>Once we know in which kernel module the leak is, it shouldn't be too
>>hard to find out where the leak is exactly. There aren't that many
>>memory allocations in there.
>>BTW, thanks a lot for reporting.
> Not a problem. Thanks for looking into this. One of these days I'll
> get my head around the I2C and lm_sensors architecture in the kernel,
> and maybe I can send you patches instead (-;
More information about the lm-sensors