From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CE506B01D2 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:14:01 +0900 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: config-options: Default buffer size for kmemleak Message-ID: <20100622121401.GC20140@linux-sh.org> References: <1277189909-16376-1-git-send-email-sankar.curiosity@gmail.com> <4C20702C.1080405@cs.helsinki.fi> <1277196403-20836-1-git-send-email-sankar.curiosity@gmail.com> <20100622113135.GB20140@linux-sh.org> <1277208351.29532.5.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1277208351.29532.5.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Sankar P , 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 List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org