On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 05:37:18PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:03:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > If kmemleak is enabled, scan and report memory leaks after every test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > check | 2 ++
> > common/rc | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/check b/check
> > index b2d251a..469188e 100755
> > --- a/check
> > +++ b/check
> > @@ -497,6 +497,7 @@ _check_filesystems()
> > fi
> > }
> >
> > +_init_kmemleak
> > _prepare_test_list
> >
> > if $OPTIONS_HAVE_SECTIONS; then
> > @@ -793,6 +794,7 @@ for section in $HOST_OPTIONS_SECTIONS; do
> > n_try=`expr $n_try + 1`
> > _check_filesystems
> > _check_dmesg || err=true
> > + _check_kmemleak || err=true
> > fi
> >
> > fi
> > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > index cb83918..a2bed36 100644
> > --- a/common/rc
> > +++ b/common/rc
> > @@ -3339,6 +3339,58 @@ _check_dmesg()
> > fi
> > }
> >
> > +# capture the kmemleak report
> > +_capture_kmemleak()
> > +{
> > + local _kern_knob="${DEBUGFS_MNT}/kmemleak"
> > + local _leak_file="$1"
> > +
> > + # Tell the kernel to scan for memory leaks. Apparently the write
> > + # returns before the scan is complete, so do it twice in the hopes
> > + # that twice is enough to capture all the leaks.
> > + echo "scan" > "${_kern_knob}"
> > + cat "${_kern_knob}" > /dev/null
> > + echo "scan" > "${_kern_knob}"
> > + cat "${_kern_knob}" > "${_leak_file}"
> > + echo "clear" > "${_kern_knob}"
>
> Hmm, two scans seem not enough either, I could see false positive easily
> in a 'quick' group run, because some leaks are not reported immediately
> after the test but after next test or next few tests. e.g. I saw
> generic/008 (tested on XFS) being reported as leaking memory, and from
> 008.kmemleak I saw:
>
> unreferenced object 0xffff880277679800 (size 512):
> comm "nametest", pid 25007, jiffies 4300176958 (age 9.854s)
> ...
>
> But "nametest" is only used in generic/007, the leak should be triggered
> by generic/007 too, but 007 was reported as PASS in my case.
>
> Not sure what's the best way to deal with these false positive, adding
> more scans seem to work, but that's ugly and requires more test time..
> What do you think?
I'm not sure either -- the brief scan I made of mm/kmemleak.c didn't
reveal anything obvious that would explain the behavior we see. It
might just take a while for determine positively that an item isn't
gray.
We could change the message to state that found leaks might have
resulted from the previous test? That's rather unsatisfying, but I
don't know what else to do.
Or maybe a sleep 1 in between scans to see if that makes it more likely
to attribute a leak to the correct test? I don't anticipate running
xfstests with kmemleak=on too terribly often, so the extra ~700s won't
bother me too much.
--D
> Otherwise the whole check kmemleak framework looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +# set up kmemleak
> > +_init_kmemleak()
> > +{
> > + local _kern_knob="${DEBUGFS_MNT}/kmemleak"
> > +
> > + if [ ! -w "${_kern_knob}" ]; then
> > + return 0
> > + fi
> > +
> > + # Disable the automatic scan so that we can control it completely,
> > + # then dump all the leaks recorded so far.
> > + echo "scan=off" > "${_kern_knob}"
> > + _capture_kmemleak /dev/null
> > +}
> > +
> > +# check kmemleak log
> > +_check_kmemleak()
> > +{
> > + local _kern_knob="${DEBUGFS_MNT}/kmemleak"
> > + local _leak_file="${seqres}.kmemleak"
> > +
> > + if [ ! -w "${_kern_knob}" ]; then
> > + return 0
> > + fi
> > +
> > + # Capture and report any leaks
> > + _capture_kmemleak "${_leak_file}"
> > + if [ -s "${_leak_file}" ]; then
> > + _dump_err "_check_kmemleak: something found in kmemleak (see ${_leak_file})"
> > + return 1
> > + else
> > + rm -f "${_leak_file}"
> > + return 0
> > + fi
> > +}
> > +
> > # don't check dmesg log after test
> > _disable_dmesg_check()
> > {
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
