All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Sankar P <sankar.curiosity@gmail.com>,
	penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lrodriguez@atheros.com,
	rnagarajan@novell.com, teheo@novell.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:14:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100622121401.GC20140@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1277208351.29532.5.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:31 +0100, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:16:43PM +0530, Sankar P wrote:
> > > If we try to find the memory leaks in kernel that is
> > > compiled with 'make defconfig', the default buffer size
> > > of DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_EARLY_LOG_SIZE seem to be inadequate.
> > >
> > > Change the buffer size from 400 to 1000,
> > > which is sufficient for most cases.
> > >
> > Or you could just bump it up in your config where you seem to be hitting
> > this problem. The default of 400 is sufficient for most people, so
> > bloating it up for a corner case seems a bit premature. Perhaps
> > eventually we'll have no choice and have to tolerate the bloat, as we did
> > with LOG_BUF_SHIFT, but it's not obvious that we've hit that point with
> > kmemleak yet.
> 
> I agree. The 400 seems to be sufficient with standard kernel
> configurations (I usually try some of the Ubuntu configs on x86). The
> error message is hopefully clear enough about what needs to be changed.
> 
> The defconfig change for this specific platform may be a better option
> but I thought defconfigs are to provide a stable (and maybe close to
> optimal) configuration without all the debugging features enabled
> (especially those slowing things down considerably).
> 
I would be fine with that, but I don't see any correlation between the
posted dmesg and the defconfig? I've run the config in question without
hitting problems, so I'm a bit confused as to why that particular config
was singled out.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Sankar P <sankar.curiosity@gmail.com>,
	penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lrodriguez@atheros.com,
	rnagarajan@novell.com, teheo@novell.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:14:01 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100622121401.GC20140@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1277208351.29532.5.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:31 +0100, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:16:43PM +0530, Sankar P wrote:
> > > If we try to find the memory leaks in kernel that is
> > > compiled with 'make defconfig', the default buffer size
> > > of DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_EARLY_LOG_SIZE seem to be inadequate.
> > >
> > > Change the buffer size from 400 to 1000,
> > > which is sufficient for most cases.
> > >
> > Or you could just bump it up in your config where you seem to be hitting
> > this problem. The default of 400 is sufficient for most people, so
> > bloating it up for a corner case seems a bit premature. Perhaps
> > eventually we'll have no choice and have to tolerate the bloat, as we did
> > with LOG_BUF_SHIFT, but it's not obvious that we've hit that point with
> > kmemleak yet.
> 
> I agree. The 400 seems to be sufficient with standard kernel
> configurations (I usually try some of the Ubuntu configs on x86). The
> error message is hopefully clear enough about what needs to be changed.
> 
> The defconfig change for this specific platform may be a better option
> but I thought defconfigs are to provide a stable (and maybe close to
> optimal) configuration without all the debugging features enabled
> (especially those slowing things down considerably).
> 
I would be fine with that, but I don't see any correlation between the
posted dmesg and the defconfig? I've run the config in question without
hitting problems, so I'm a bit confused as to why that particular config
was singled out.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Sankar P <sankar.curiosity@gmail.com>,
	penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lrodriguez@atheros.com,
	rnagarajan@novell.com, teheo@novell.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:14:01 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100622121401.GC20140@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1277208351.29532.5.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:31 +0100, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:16:43PM +0530, Sankar P wrote:
> > > If we try to find the memory leaks in kernel that is
> > > compiled with 'make defconfig', the default buffer size
> > > of DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_EARLY_LOG_SIZE seem to be inadequate.
> > >
> > > Change the buffer size from 400 to 1000,
> > > which is sufficient for most cases.
> > >
> > Or you could just bump it up in your config where you seem to be hitting
> > this problem. The default of 400 is sufficient for most people, so
> > bloating it up for a corner case seems a bit premature. Perhaps
> > eventually we'll have no choice and have to tolerate the bloat, as we did
> > with LOG_BUF_SHIFT, but it's not obvious that we've hit that point with
> > kmemleak yet.
> 
> I agree. The 400 seems to be sufficient with standard kernel
> configurations (I usually try some of the Ubuntu configs on x86). The
> error message is hopefully clear enough about what needs to be changed.
> 
> The defconfig change for this specific platform may be a better option
> but I thought defconfigs are to provide a stable (and maybe close to
> optimal) configuration without all the debugging features enabled
> (especially those slowing things down considerably).
> 
I would be fine with that, but I don't see any correlation between the
posted dmesg and the defconfig? I've run the config in question without
hitting problems, so I'm a bit confused as to why that particular config
was singled out.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-22 12:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-17  9:21 Probable Bug (or configuration error) in kmemleak Sankar P
2010-06-17 17:36 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-17 17:36   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-18  8:11   ` Sankar P
2010-06-18 13:00     ` Catalin Marinas
2010-06-18 13:00       ` Catalin Marinas
2010-06-18 13:25       ` Sankar P
2010-06-18 13:25         ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  6:54         ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  6:54           ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  6:58     ` [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: Change kmemleak default buffer size Sankar P
2010-06-22  6:59       ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  6:58       ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  8:11       ` Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22  8:11         ` Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22  8:11         ` Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22  8:46         ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Sankar P
2010-06-22  8:58           ` Sankar P
2010-06-22  8:46           ` Sankar P
2010-06-22 11:31           ` Paul Mundt
2010-06-22 11:31             ` Paul Mundt
2010-06-22 11:31             ` Paul Mundt
2010-06-22 12:05             ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:05               ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:05               ` Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:14               ` Paul Mundt [this message]
2010-06-22 12:14                 ` Paul Mundt
2010-06-22 12:14                 ` Paul Mundt
2010-06-22 12:21               ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 12:21                 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 12:21                 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 12:35                 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:35                   ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:35                   ` Catalin Marinas
2010-06-22 12:41                   ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 12:41                     ` [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 12:41                     ` Pekka Enberg
2010-06-22 16:55       ` [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: Change kmemleak default buffer size Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-22 16:55         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-22 16:55         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-24  7:31         ` Sankar P
2010-06-24  7:43           ` Sankar P
2010-06-24  7:31           ` Sankar P
2010-06-24 18:56           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-24 18:56             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-24 18:56             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
     [not found]             ` <AANLkTim4mjw0BFshK_4RS6oDLLQMH_BF7BklU7EhETSj@mail.gmail.com>
2010-06-24 19:12               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-24 19:17                 ` Sankar P
2010-06-24 19:20                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-24 19:27                     ` Sankar P
2010-06-25  9:10                       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-06-25  9:18                         ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100622121401.GC20140@linux-sh.org \
    --to=lethal@linux-sh.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lrodriguez@atheros.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=rnagarajan@novell.com \
    --cc=sankar.curiosity@gmail.com \
    --cc=teheo@novell.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.