lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM / Hibernation: Fix *massive* memory leak at early exits in hibernation
Date
On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 02:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2011 05:15 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>> On Mon 2011-11-21 23:25:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 21, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >>>>> At some of the early exit points during hibernation (exiting either due
> >>>>> to failure or after a successful hibernation test, the memory pre-allocated
> >>>>> for hibernation is not freed up. And this is *very* serious, because, during
> >>>>> pre-allocation, it could have allocated upto a few *gigabytes* of memory!
> >>>>> And hence, if a hibernation fails or even if we run some hibernation tests
> >>>>> using the 'pm_test' framework, the system is rendered unstable due to memory
> >>>>> becoming signifantly lower. Fix this bug.
> >>>>
> >>>> While the observation is valid, I'd prefer to do something like the patch
> >>>> below.
> >>>
> >>> The code slowly becomes goto maze :-(.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree.. It is already quite a mess.
> >>
> >>>> @@ -357,12 +357,14 @@ int hibernation_snapshot(int platform_mo
> >>>> * successful freezer test.
> >>>> */
> >>>> freezer_test_done = true;
> >>>> - goto Close;
> >>>> + goto Cleanup;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> error = dpm_prepare(PMSG_FREEZE);
> >>>> - if (error)
> >>>> - goto Complete_devices;
> >>>> + if (error) {
> >>>> + dpm_complete(msg);
> >>>> + goto Cleanup;
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps dpm_prepare should be changed to clean after itself in the
> >>> error case? That is the normal convention AFAICT....
> >>>
> >>
> >> If the intention here is to merely clean up hibernation_snapshot() code,
> >> I would not prefer to change the behaviour of dpm_prepare(), considering
> >> things like, what parameter should we pass to dpm_complete(); is the
> >> resultant behaviour change in dpm_suspend_start() correct or not; what
> >> happens to all the code that uses the nice pair: dpm_suspend_start() and
> >> dpm_resume_end() and so on.
> >>
> >> Perhaps there are bigger issues involved there, since I observed on a brief
> >> look that the current code doesn't seem to strictly follow the above
> >> convention that whoever called dpm_prepare() should call dpm_complete()
> >> upon failure. Or may be its doing the right thing.. I don't know.
> >>
> >> But anyway, the good news is, even without changing dpm_prepare()'s
> >> behaviour, we can clean up quite a bit of code in hibernation_snapshot(),
> >> as it is.
> >>
> >> The first patch below does the cleanup, the second patch fixes the memory
> >> leak and applies on top of the first patch.
> >
> > Wait, wait. These changes can be made in the 3.3 merge window, while I'd
> > like the fix the bug _now_.
> >
> > Does anyone have any _technical_ problem with my patch posted previously
> > in this thread?
> >
>
> Technically, your patch is fine :-)
>
> Acked-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

Please feel free to make the cleanup on top of it.

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-22 21:55    [W:0.046 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site