This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] malloc: Fix missing accounting of top chunk in malloc_info [BZ #24026]


On 8/1/19 8:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Author: Niklas Hambüchen <mail@nh2.me>

Fixes `<total type="rest" size="..."> incorrectly showing as 0 most
of the time.

The rest value being wrong is significant because to compute the
actual amount of memory handed out via malloc, the user must subtract
it from <system type="current" size="...">. That result being wrong
makes investigating memory fragmentation issues like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843478 close to
impossible.

[Patch from Bugzilla.  Reformatted for GNU style.]

2019-08-01  Niklas Hambüchen  <mail@nh2.me>

	[BZ #24026]
	* malloc/malloc.c (__malloc_info): Account for top chunk.

diff --git a/malloc/malloc.c b/malloc/malloc.c
index 00ce48cf58..1083cd3ef2 100644
--- a/malloc/malloc.c
+++ b/malloc/malloc.c
@@ -5406,6 +5406,10 @@ __malloc_info (int options, FILE *fp)
__libc_lock_lock (ar_ptr->mutex); + /* Account for top chunk. */
+      avail = chunksize (ar_ptr->top);
+      nblocks = 1;  /* Top always exists.  */
+
        for (size_t i = 0; i < NFASTBINS; ++i)
  	{
  	  mchunkptr p = fastbin (ar_ptr, i);


The malloc accounting is quiet complex.

To review this I'd basically have to do a bunch of debugging on
my own to prove this is correct since your proposed patch doesn't
have the required details to validate the change.

Can you post some analysis of a trivial heap and show how this is
a correct fix with before and after numbers?

Can we get a test case that has a trivial setup that shows the fix
is working and in place?

--
Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]