Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2023 16:30:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 01/10] lib/ref_tracker: add unlocked leak print helper | From | Andrzej Hajda <> |
| |
On 19.03.2023 23:59, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > [...] > >> diff --git a/lib/ref_tracker.c b/lib/ref_tracker.c >> index dc7b14aa3431e2..5e9f90bbf771b0 100644 >> --- a/lib/ref_tracker.c >> +++ b/lib/ref_tracker.c >> @@ -14,6 +14,38 @@ struct ref_tracker { >> depot_stack_handle_t free_stack_handle; >> }; >> >> +void __ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, >> + unsigned int display_limit) > > can we call this ref_tracker_dir_print_locked() instead of using > the '__'? >
OK, 'locked' convention looks better.
Regards Andrzej
>> +{ >> + struct ref_tracker *tracker; >> + unsigned int i = 0; >> + >> + lockdep_assert_held(&dir->lock); >> + >> + list_for_each_entry(tracker, &dir->list, head) { >> + if (i < display_limit) { >> + pr_err("leaked reference.\n"); >> + if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle) >> + stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle); >> + i++; >> + } else { >> + break; >> + } >> + } >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ref_tracker_dir_print); >> + >> +void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, >> + unsigned int display_limit) >> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dir->lock, flags); >> + __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, display_limit); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dir->lock, flags); >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_print); >> + >> void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir) >> { >> struct ref_tracker *tracker, *n; >> @@ -27,13 +59,13 @@ void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir) >> kfree(tracker); >> dir->quarantine_avail++; >> } >> - list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) { >> - pr_err("leaked reference.\n"); >> - if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle) >> - stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle); >> + if (!list_empty(&dir->list)) { >> + __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, 16); >> leak = true; >> - list_del(&tracker->head); >> - kfree(tracker); >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) { >> + list_del(&tracker->head); >> + kfree(tracker); >> + } > > Just thinking whether this should go on a different patch, but I > don't have a strong opinion. > > Looks good! > > Andi
| |