On Tue 30-07-19 12:57:43, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:23:33 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.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?
I do agree with Andrew here. Can we simply go with no tunning for now and only add it based on some real life reports that the auto-tuning is not sufficient? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
