Re: DEFINE_IDA causing memory leaks? (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio: fix memory leak of virtio ida cache layers)
From: James Bottomley
Date: Thu Sep 17 2015 - 13:58:36 EST
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 13:15 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:48:37AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Well, there's an easy fix for that. We could have ida_remove() actually
> > free the bitmap and not cache it if it's the last layer. That way ida
> > would naturally empty and we wouldn't need a destructor. Tejun, would
> > that work?
>
> Yeah, that definitely is one way to go about it. It kinda muddles the
> purpose of ida_destroy() tho. I suppose we can rename it to
> idr_remove_all() and then do the same to idr. I'm not particularly
> objecting to all that but what's wrong with just calling idr_destroy()
> on exit paths? If missing the call in modules is an issue, maybe we
> can just annotate idr/ida with debugobj?
The argument is that we shouldn't have to explicitly destroy a
statically initialized object, so
DEFINE_IDA(someida);
Should just work without having to explicitly do
ida_destory(someida);
somewhere in the exit code. It's about usage patterns. Michael's
argument is that if we can't follow the no destructor pattern for
DEFINE_IDA() then we shouldn't have it at all, because it's confusing
kernel design patterns. The pattern we would have would be
struct ida someida:
ida_init(&someida);
...
ida_destroy(&someida);
so the object explicitly has a constructor matched to a destructor.
James
--
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/