Hi Catalin, On 2017/11/18 2:27, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Please fix the subject as the tool is called "kmemleak" rather than > "kmemcheck".
Yeah, this really is a terrible typo. > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 03:03:56PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote: >> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c >> index e4738d5..e9f2e86 100644 >> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c >> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c >> @@ -1523,6 +1523,8 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void) >> if (page_count(page) == 0) >> continue; >> scan_block(page, page + 1, NULL); >> + if (!(pfn % 1024)) >> + cond_resched(); > > For consistency with the other places where we call cond_resched() in > kmemleak, I would use MAX_SCAN_SIZE. Something like > > if (!(pfn % (MAX_SCAN_SIZE / sizeof(page)))) > cont_resched(); Yes, this will keep it consistency with the other places. I will take both of these suggestion in next version. Thanks Yisheng Xie > > Thanks. >
