On 11/24/2014 02:08 PM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 13:18 PM
>> > To: Dexuan Cui; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>> > driverdev-de...@linuxdriverproject.org; o...@aepfle.de;
>> > a...@canonical.com; KY Srinivasan
>> > Cc: Haiyang Zhang
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv: hv_balloon: avoid memory leak on alloc_error of
>> > 2MB memory block
>> >
>> > On 11/24/2014 01:56 PM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>>> > > If num_ballooned is not 0, we shouldn't neglect the already-allocated
>> > 2MB
>>> > > memory block(s).
>>> > >
>>> > > Cc: K. Y. Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>
>>> > > Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
>>> > > Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <de...@microsoft.com>
>>> > > ---
>>> > > drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 4 +++-
>>> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> > >
>>> > > diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
>>> > > index 5e90c5d..cba2d3b 100644
>>> > > --- a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
>>> > > +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
>>> > > @@ -1091,6 +1091,8 @@ static void balloon_up(struct work_struct
>> > *dummy)
>>> > > bool done = false;
>>> > > int i;
>>> > >
>>> > > + /* The host does balloon_up in 2MB. */
>>> > > + WARN_ON(num_pages % PAGES_IN_2M != 0);
>>> > >
>>> > > /*
>>> > > * We will attempt 2M allocations. However, if we fail to
>>> > > @@ -1111,7 +1113,7 @@ static void balloon_up(struct work_struct
>> > *dummy)
>>> > > bl_resp, alloc_unit,
>>> > > &alloc_error);
>>> > >
>>> > > - if ((alloc_error) && (alloc_unit != 1)) {
>>> > > + if (alloc_error && (alloc_unit != 1) && num_ballooned
>>> > > == 0)
>> > {
>>> > > alloc_unit = 1;
>>> > > continue;
>>> > > }
>> >
>> > Before the change, we may retry the 4K allocation when part or all 2M
>> > allocations were failed. This makes sense when memory is fragmented. But
> Yes, but all the partially-allocated 2MB memory blocks are lost(mem leak).
>
>> > after the change, if part of 2M allocation were failed, we won't retry
>> > 4K allocation. Is this expected?
> Hi Jason,
> The patch doesn't break the "try 2MB first; then try 4K" logic:
>
> With the change, we'll retry the 2MB allocation in the next iteration of the
> same while (!done) loop -- we expect this retry will cause
> "alloc_error && (alloc_unit != 1) && num_ballooned == 0" to be true,
> so we'll later try 4K allocation, as we did before.
If I read the code correctly, if part of 2M allocation fails.
alloc_balloon_pages() will have a non zero return value with alloc_error
set. Then it will match the following check:
if ((alloc_error) || (num_ballooned == num_pages))
{
which will set done to true. So there's no second iteration of while
(!done) loop?
Probably you need something like:
if ((alloc_unit != 1) && (num_ballooned == 0)) {
alloc_unit = 1;
continue;
}
if ((alloc_unit == 1) || (num_ballooned = num_pages)) {
...
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
