Hi Catalin, 2 Sept 2025 20:25:19 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 08:27:59AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:51:47 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote: >>> It is unclear why a second scan is needed and only the second one caught >>> something. Was it the same with the strange issues you mentioned in >>> driver tests? Do you think I should re-add the second scan + cat? >> >> Not sure, cc: Catalin, from experience it seems like second scan often >> surfaces issues the first scan missed. > > It's some of the kmemleak heuristics to reduce false positives. It does > a checksum of the object during scanning and only reports a leak if the > checksum is the same in two consecutive scans. Thank you for the explanation! Does that mean a scan should be triggered at the end of the tests, then wait 5 second for the grace period, then trigger another scan and check the results? Or wait 5 seconds, then trigger two consecutive scans? Cheers, Matt
