Re: [PATCH] xen-blkback: fix memory leaks

[Roger Pau Monné]

On 27/01/14 22:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:13:41AM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> I've at least identified two possible memory leaks in blkback, both
>> related to the shutdown path of a VBD:
>>
>> - We don't wait for any pending purge work to finish before cleaning
>>   the list of free_pages. The purge work will call put_free_pages and
>>   thus we might end up with pages being added to the free_pages list
>>   after we have emptied it.
>> - We don't wait for pending requests to end before cleaning persistent
>>   grants and the list of free_pages. Again this can add pages to the
>>   free_pages lists or persistent grants to the persistent_gnts
>>   red-black tree.
>>
>> Also, add some checks in xen_blkif_free to make sure we are cleaning
>> everything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Matt Rushton <mrushton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Matt Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> This should be applied after the patch:
>>
>> xen-blkback: fix memory leak when persistent grants are used
>>
>> >From Matt Rushton & Matt Wilson and backported to stable.
>>
>> I've been able to create and destroy ~4000 guests while doing heavy IO
>> operations with this patch on a 512M Dom0 without problems.
>> ---
>>  drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c |   29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c  |    9 +++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> index 30ef7b3..19925b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
>> @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
>>  				struct pending_req *pending_req);
>>  static void make_response(struct xen_blkif *blkif, u64 id,
>>  			  unsigned short op, int st);
>> +static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, bool force);
>>  
>>  #define foreach_grant_safe(pos, n, rbtree, node) \
>>  	for ((pos) = container_of(rb_first((rbtree)), typeof(*(pos)), node), \
>> @@ -625,6 +626,12 @@ purge_gnt_list:
>>  			print_stats(blkif);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/* Drain pending IO */
>> +	xen_blk_drain_io(blkif, true);
>> +
>> +	/* Drain pending purge work */
>> +	flush_work(&blkif->persistent_purge_work);
>> +
> 
> I think this means we can eliminate the refcnt usage - at least when
> it comes to xen_blkif_disconnect where if we would initiate the shutdown, and
> there is
> 
> 239         atomic_dec(&blkif->refcnt);                                             
> 240         wait_event(blkif->waiting_to_free, atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) == 0);   
> 241         atomic_inc(&blkif->refcnt);                                             
> 242                                                                                 
> 
> which is done _after_ the thread is done executing. That check won't
> be needed anymore as the xen_blk_drain_io, flush_work, and free_persistent_gnts
> has pretty much drained every I/O out - so the moment the thread exits
> there should be no need for waiting_to_free. I think.

I've reworked this patch a bit, so we don't drain the in-flight requests
here, and instead moved all the cleanup code to xen_blkif_free. I've
also split the xen_blkif_put race fix into a separate patch.

> 
>>  	/* Free all persistent grant pages */
>>  	if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&blkif->persistent_gnts))
>>  		free_persistent_gnts(blkif, &blkif->persistent_gnts,
>> @@ -930,7 +937,7 @@ static int dispatch_other_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
>>  	return -EIO;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
>> +static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif, bool force)
>>  {
>>  	atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 1);
>>  	do {
>> @@ -943,7 +950,7 @@ static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
>>  
>>  		if (!atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
>>  			break;
>> -	} while (!kthread_should_stop());
>> +	} while (!kthread_should_stop() || force);
>>  	atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 0);
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -976,17 +983,19 @@ static void __end_block_io_op(struct pending_req *pending_req, int error)
>>  	 * the proper response on the ring.
>>  	 */
>>  	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&pending_req->pendcnt)) {
>> -		xen_blkbk_unmap(pending_req->blkif,
>> +		struct xen_blkif *blkif = pending_req->blkif;
>> +
>> +		xen_blkbk_unmap(blkif,
>>  		                pending_req->segments,
>>  		                pending_req->nr_pages);
>> -		make_response(pending_req->blkif, pending_req->id,
>> +		make_response(blkif, pending_req->id,
>>  			      pending_req->operation, pending_req->status);
>> -		xen_blkif_put(pending_req->blkif);
>> -		if (atomic_read(&pending_req->blkif->refcnt) <= 2) {
>> -			if (atomic_read(&pending_req->blkif->drain))
>> -				complete(&pending_req->blkif->drain_complete);
>> +		free_req(blkif, pending_req);
>> +		xen_blkif_put(blkif);
>> +		if (atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) <= 2) {
>> +			if (atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
>> +				complete(&blkif->drain_complete);
>>  		}
>> -		free_req(pending_req->blkif, pending_req);
> 
> I keep coming back to this and I am not sure what to think - especially
> in the context of WRITE_BARRIER and disconnecting the vbd.
> 
> You moved the 'free_req' to be done before you do atomic_read/dec.
> 
> Which means that we do:
> 
> 	list_add(&req->free_list, &blkif->pending_free);
> 	wake_up(&blkif->pending_free_wq);
> 
> 	atomic_dec
> 	if atomic_read <= 2 poke thread that is waiting for drain.
> 
> 
> while in the past we did:
> 
> 	atomic_dec
> 	if atomic_read <= 2 poke thread that is waiting for drain.
> 
> 	list_add(&req->free_list, &blkif->pending_free);
> 	wake_up(&blkif->pending_free_wq);
> 
> which means that we are giving the 'req' _before_ we decrement
> the refcnts.
> 
> Could that mean that __do_block_io_op takes it for a spin - oh
> wait it won't as it is sitting on a WRITE_BARRIER and waiting:
> 
> 1226         if (drain)                                                              
> 1227                 xen_blk_drain_io(pending_req->blkif);  
> 
> But still that feels 'wrong'?

Mmmm, the wake_up call in free_req in the context of WRITE_BARRIER is
harmless since the thread is waiting on drain_complete as you say, but I
take your point that it's all confusing. Do you think it will feel
better if we gate the call to wake_up in free_req with this condition:

if (was_empty && !atomic_read(&blkif->drain))

Or is this just going to make it even messier?

Maybe just adding a comment in free_req saying that the wake_up call is
going to be ignored in the context of a WRITE_BARRIER, since the thread
is already waiting on drain_complete is enough.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/