Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/amdgpu: fix BO leak after successful move test

["Das, Nirmoy" <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxx>]

On 10/20/2021 1:51 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 20.10.21 um 13:50 schrieb Christian König:
> > Am 13.10.21 um 17:09 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
> > > GTT BO cleanup code is with in the test for loop and
> > > we would skip cleaning up GTT BO on success.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: zhang <botton_zhang@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_test.c | 25 
> > > ++++++++++++------------
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_test.c 
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_test.c
> > > index 909d830b513e..5fe7ff680c29 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_test.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_test.c
> > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static void amdgpu_do_test_moves(struct 
> > > amdgpu_device *adev)
> > >       struct amdgpu_bo *vram_obj = NULL;
> > >       struct amdgpu_bo **gtt_obj = NULL;
> > >       struct amdgpu_bo_param bp;
> > > +    struct dma_fence *fence = NULL;
> > >       uint64_t gart_addr, vram_addr;
> > >       unsigned n, size;
> > >       int i, r;
> > > @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void amdgpu_do_test_moves(struct 
> > > amdgpu_device *adev)
> > >           void *gtt_map, *vram_map;
> > >           void **gart_start, **gart_end;
> > >           void **vram_start, **vram_end;
> > > -        struct dma_fence *fence = NULL;
> > >             bp.domain = AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT;
> > >           r = amdgpu_bo_create(adev, &bp, gtt_obj + i);
> > > @@ -212,24 +212,23 @@ static void amdgpu_do_test_moves(struct 
> > > amdgpu_device *adev)
> > >             DRM_INFO("Tested GTT->VRAM and VRAM->GTT copy for GTT 
> > > offset 0x%llx\n",
> > >                gart_addr - adev->gmc.gart_start);
> > > -        continue;
> > > +    }
> > >   +    --i;
> > >   out_lclean_unpin:
> > > -        amdgpu_bo_unpin(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > +    amdgpu_bo_unpin(gtt_obj[i]);
> > >   out_lclean_unres:
> > > -        amdgpu_bo_unreserve(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > +    amdgpu_bo_unreserve(gtt_obj[i]);
> > >   out_lclean_unref:
> > > -        amdgpu_bo_unref(&gtt_obj[i]);
> > > +    amdgpu_bo_unref(&gtt_obj[i]);
> > >   out_lclean:
> > > -        for (--i; i >= 0; --i) {
> > > -            amdgpu_bo_unpin(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > -            amdgpu_bo_unreserve(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > -            amdgpu_bo_unref(&gtt_obj[i]);
> > > -        }
> > > -        if (fence)
> > > -            dma_fence_put(fence);
> > > -        break;
> > > +    for (--i; i >= 0; --i) {
> >
> > The usual idiom for cleanups like that is "while (i--)..." because 
> > that also works with an unsigned i.
> >
> > Apart from that looks good to me.
>
> But I'm not sure that we would want to keep the in kernel tests around 
> anyway.
>
> We now have my amdgpu_stress tool to test memory bandwidth and mesa 
> has an option for that for a long time as well.


Shall I then remove amdgpu_test.c ?


Nirmoy


> Christian.
>
> > Christian.
> >
> > > +        amdgpu_bo_unpin(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > +        amdgpu_bo_unreserve(gtt_obj[i]);
> > > +        amdgpu_bo_unref(&gtt_obj[i]);
> > >       }
> > > +    if (fence)
> > > +        dma_fence_put(fence);
> > >         amdgpu_bo_unpin(vram_obj);
> > >   out_unres: