From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: More information on scsi_cmd_cache leak... (bisect) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:20:16 -0600 Message-ID: <1138389616.3293.13.camel@mulgrave> References: <200601270410.06762.chase.venters@clientec.com> <17369.65530.747867.844964@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20060127112352.GF4311@suse.de> <20060127112837.GG4311@suse.de> <43DA6F33.3070101@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:26305 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932436AbWA0TVD (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:21:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43DA6F33.3070101@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: Jens Axboe , Neil Brown , Chase Venters , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, a.titov@host.bg, askernel2615@dsgml.com, jamie@audible.transient.net On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 13:06 -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > It does not have anything to do with this in scsi_io_completion does it? > > if (blk_complete_barrier_rq(q, req, good_bytes >> 9)) > return; > > For that case the scsi_cmnd does not get freed. Does it come back around > again and get released from a different path? It looks such a likely candidate, doesn't it. Unfortunately, Tejun Heo removed that code around 6 Jan (in [BLOCK] update SCSI to use new blk_ordered for barriers), so if it is that, then the latest kernels should now not be leaking. However, all the avaliable evidence does seem to point to the write barrier enforcement. I'll take another look over those code paths. James