Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:04:27 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 02/24] x86/resctrl: kfree() rmid_ptrs from rdtgroup_exit() | From | Reinette Chatre <> |
| |
Hi James,
On 10/5/2023 10:05 AM, James Morse wrote: > On 02/10/2023 18:00, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 9/14/2023 10:21 AM, James Morse wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c >>> index 725344048f85..a2158c266e41 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c >>> @@ -3867,6 +3867,11 @@ int __init rdtgroup_init(void) >>> >>> void __exit rdtgroup_exit(void) >>> { >>> + struct rdt_resource *r = &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3].r_resctrl; >>> + >>> + if (r->mon_capable) >>> + resctrl_exit_mon_l3_config(r); >>> + >>> debugfs_remove_recursive(debugfs_resctrl); >>> unregister_filesystem(&rdt_fs_type); >>> sysfs_remove_mount_point(fs_kobj, "resctrl"); >> >> You did not respond to me when I requested that this be done differently [1]. >> Without a response letting me know the faults of my proposal or following the >> recommendation I conclude that my feedback was ignored. > > Not so - I just trimmed the bits that didn't need a response. I can respond 'Yes' to each > one if you prefer, but I find that adds more noise than signal.
I do not expect a response to every review feedback but no response is assumed to mean that you agree with the feedback.
> > This is my attempt at 'doing the cleanup properly', which is what you said your preference > was. (no machine on the planet can ever run this code, the __exit section is always > discarded by the linker). > > Reading through again, I missed that you wanted this called from resctrl_exit(). (The
Right. And not responding to that created expectation that you agreed with the request.
> naming suggests I did this originally, but it didn't work out). > I don't think this works as the code in resctrl_exit() remains part of the arch code after > the move, but allocating rmid_ptrs[] stays part of the fs code. > > resctrl_exit() in core.c gets renamed as resctrl_arch_exit(), and rdtgroup_exit() takes on > the name resctrl_exit() as its part of the exposed interface.
I expect memory allocation/free to be symmetrical. Doing otherwise complicates the code. Having this memory freed in rdtgroup_exit() only seems appropriate if it is allocated from rdtgroup_init(). Neither rmid_ptrs[] nor closid_num_dirty_rmid are allocated in rdtgroup_init() so freeing it in rdtgroup_exit() is not appropriate.
If you are planning to move resctrl_exit() to be arch code then I expect resctrl_late_init() to be split with the rmid_ptrs[]/closid_num_dirty_rmid allocation moving to fs code. Freeing that memory can follow at that time.
Reinette
| |