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@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>