On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 03:25:10PM +0300, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:09:35PM +0200, Javier González wrote:
> > > On 1 Oct 2017, at 15.25, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > While separating read and erase mempools in 22da65a1b pblk_g_rq_cache
> > > was used two times to set aside memory both for erase and read
> > > requests. Because same kmem cache is used repeatedly a single call to
> > > kmem_cache_destroy wouldn't deallocate everything. Repeatedly doing
> > > loading and unloading of pblk modules would eventually result in some
> > > leak.
> > >
> > > The fix is to really use separate kmem cache and track it
> > > appropriately.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 22da65a1b ("lightnvm: pblk: decouple read/erase mempools")
> > > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow this logic. I assume that you're thinking of the
> > refcount on kmem_cache. During cache creation, all is good; if a
> > different cache creation fails, destruction is guaranteed, since the
> > refcount is 0. On tear down (pblk_core_free), we destroy the mempools
> > associated to the caches. In this case, the refcount goes to 0 too, as
> > we destroy the 2 mempools. So I don't see where the leak can happen. Am
> > I missing something?
> >
> > In any case, Jens reported some bugs on the mempools, where we did not
> > guarantee forward progress. Here you can find the original discussion
> > and the mempool audit [1]. Would be good if you reviewed these.
> >
> > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2602274.html
> >
>
> Thanks, yes makes sense to follow up in patch thread. I will respond
> to above questions there later today.
>
I wasn't thinking it right in addition to looking at test results from
a incorrectly instrumented debugged version.
I went through the series you pointed and all seem okay to me now.
Please drop this patch.
Regards,
