Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 01/10] lib/ref_tracker: add unlocked leak print helper

[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