[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190730125743.113e59a9c449847d7f6ae7c3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:57:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: kmemleak: Use mempool allocations for kmemleak
objects
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:23:33 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> Add mempool allocations for struct kmemleak_object and
> kmemleak_scan_area as slightly more resilient than kmem_cache_alloc()
> under memory pressure. Additionally, mask out all the gfp flags passed
> to kmemleak other than GFP_KERNEL|GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> A boot-time tuning parameter (kmemleak.mempool) is added to allow a
> different minimum pool size (defaulting to NR_CPUS * 4).
Why would anyone ever want to alter this? Is there some particular
misbehaviour which this will improve? If so, what is it?
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -2011,6 +2011,12 @@
> Built with CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_DEFAULT_OFF=y,
> the default is off.
>
> + kmemleak.mempool=
> + [KNL] Boot-time tuning of the minimum kmemleak
> + metadata pool size.
> + Format: <int>
> + Default: NR_CPUS * 4
> +
This is the only documentation we provide people and it doesn't really
explain anything at all. IOW, can we do a better job of explaining all this
to the target audience?
Why does the min size need to be tunable anyway?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists