2011/8/2 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 06:35:21PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> 2011/8/1 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On 07/28/2011 12:07 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> >> 2011/7/27 Matthias Bolte <matthias.bolte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >>> doRemoteClose doesn't free the virNetClientPtr and this creates a
>> >>> 260kb leak per remote connection. This happens because
>> >>> virNetClientFree doesn't remove the last ref, because virNetClientNew
>> >>> creates the virNetClientPtr with a refcount of 2.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >> The memory leak I saw was due to virsh calling
>> >> virEventRegisterDefaultImpl, but not calling virEventRunDefaultImpl.
>> >> Because the event loop is initialized, the call to
>> >> virNetSocketAddIOCallback in virNetClientNew succeeds. But virsh not
>> >> driving the event loop results in not removing callbacks that were
>> >> marked for deletion. Finally this leaks the virNetClientPtr using in
>> >> the remote driver. I used a virsh -c qemu:///system to test.
>> >>
>> >> I was able fix this by calling virEventRunDefaultImpl after
>> >> virConnectClose in virsh. But I don't think that this is the correct
>> >> general solution.
>> >
>> > Where do we stand with 0.9.4? Is this something where we need the
>> > general fix before the release, or is just the virsh hack to call
>> > virEventRunDefaultImpl good enough for the release, or is this problem
>> > not severe enough and we can release as-is?
>>
>> virsh is a bit special here as it registers/initializes the default
>> even loop but doesn't drive it properly. It only drives it for the
>> console command. That's the problem in virsh. This can be avoided by
>> calling virEventRunDefaultImpl after virConnectClose iff it's a remote
>> connection, in other cases virEventRunDefaultImpl might block.
>> Therefore, we shouldn't be calling it in general after a
>> virConnectClose in virsh.
>>
>> If we assume that an application that registers an event loop will
>> drive it properly then this problem is not critical, as it doesn't
>> exist. Just virsh is a special case that leaks 260kb per closed remote
>> connection. When we assume that a typical virsh user uses a single
>> connection per virsh invocation then we can view this as a static
>> leak.
>
> Yeah, this is a case I never thought of. The "easy" fix is to just
> make virsh spawn a new thread to run the event loop in the background.
The problem here will probably be the console command with this lines
while (!con->quit) {
if (virEventRunDefaultImpl() < 0)
break;
}
in console.c. Having two threads calling virEventRunDefaultImpl
probably isn't a good idea.
> The "hard" fix is to make virsh I/O entirely event driven, so that
> we don't just sit in a blocking read of stdin waiting for input,
> but instead use the event loop to process stdin.
>
> Daniel
--
Matthias Bolte
http://photron.blogspot.com
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list