On Wed, Jul 17 2019 at 11:25pm -0400,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> dm-rq needs to free request which has been dispatched and not completed
> by underlying queue. However, the underlying queue may have allocated
> private stuff for this request in .queue_rq(), so dm-rq will leak the
> request private part.
No, SCSI (and blk-mq) will leak. DM doesn't know anything about the
internal memory SCSI uses. That memory is a SCSI implementation detail.
Please fix header to properly reflect which layer is doing the leaking.
> Add one new callback of .cleanup_rq() to fix the memory leak issue.
>
> Another use case is to free request when the hctx is dead during
> cpu hotplug context.
>
> Cc: Ewan D. Milne <emilne@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 396eaf21ee17 ("blk-mq: improve DM's blk-mq IO merging via blk_insert_cloned_request feedback")
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/md/dm-rq.c | 1 +
> include/linux/blk-mq.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> index c9e44ac1f9a6..21d5c1784d0c 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> @@ -408,6 +408,7 @@ static int map_request(struct dm_rq_target_io *tio)
> ret = dm_dispatch_clone_request(clone, rq);
> if (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE || ret == BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE) {
> blk_rq_unprep_clone(clone);
> + blk_mq_cleanup_rq(clone);
> tio->ti->type->release_clone_rq(clone, &tio->info);
> tio->clone = NULL;
> return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE;
Requiring upper layer driver (dm-rq) to explicitly call blk_mq_cleanup_rq()
seems wrong. In this instance tio->ti->type->release_clone_rq()
(dm-mpath's multipath_release_clone) calls blk_put_request(). Why can't
blk_put_request(), or blk_mq_free_request(), call blk_mq_cleanup_rq()?
Not looked at the cpu hotplug case you mention, but my naive thought is
it'd be pretty weird to also sprinkle a call to blk_mq_cleanup_rq() from
that specific "dead hctx" code path.
Mike
