[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a21a20d-eb12-e491-4e69-4e043b3b6d8d@windriver.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:22:06 +0800
From: Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] cgroup: fix memory leak caused by missing
cgroup_bpf_offline
Hi Ming,
On 10/20/21 10:17 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 07:10:26PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:14PM +0800, Quanyang Wang <quanyang.wang@...driver.com> wrote:
>>> So I add 2 "Fixes tags" here to indicate that 2 commits introduce two
>>> different issues.
>>
>> AFAIU, both the changes are needed to cause the leak, a single patch
>> alone won't cause the issue. Is that correct? (Perhaps not as I realize,
>> see below.)
>>
>> But on second thought, the problem is the missing percpu_ref_exit() in
>> the (root) cgroup release path and percpu counter would allocate the
>> percpu_count_ptr anyway, so 4bfc0bb2c60e is only making the leak more
>> visible. Is this correct?
>>
>> I agree the commit 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of
>> percpu_ref in fast path") alone did nothing wrong.
>
> If only precpu_ref data is leaked, it is fine to add "Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf",
> I thought cgroup_bpf_release() needs to release more for root cgroup, but
> looks not true.
For now, I can only observe that precpu_ref data is leaked when running
ltp testsuite.
Thanks,
Quanyang
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists