From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
David Airlie <airlied-cv59FeDIM0c@public.gmane.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel-/w4YWyX8dFk@public.gmane.org>
Cc: nouveau-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: drm/nouveau/core/memory: kmemleak 684 new suspected memory leaks
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:13:40 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190517061340.GA709@jagdpanzerIV> (raw)
Hello,
5.1.0-next-20190517
I'm looking at quite a lot of kmemleak reports coming from
drm/nouveau/core/memory, all of which are:
unreferenced object 0xffff8deec27c4ac0 (size 16):
comm "Web Content", pid 5309, jiffies 4309675011 (age 68.076s)
hex dump (first 16 bytes):
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<0000000081f2894f>] nvkm_memory_tags_get+0x8e/0x130
[<000000007cd7c0bc>] gf100_vmm_valid+0x196/0x2f0
[<0000000070cc6d67>] nvkm_vmm_map+0xa8/0x360
[<00000000ab678644>] nvkm_vram_map+0x48/0x50
[<00000000d8176378>] nvkm_uvmm_mthd+0x658/0x770
[<00000000463fca5a>] nvkm_ioctl+0xdf/0x177
[<000000000afc4996>] nvif_object_mthd+0xd4/0x100
[<000000002f7a7385>] nvif_vmm_map+0xeb/0x100
[<00000000ef2537ed>] nouveau_mem_map+0x79/0xd0
[<0000000014ddc0cf>] nouveau_vma_new+0x19d/0x1c0
[<00000000f99888a1>] nouveau_gem_object_open+0xd4/0x140
[<000000009cd25861>] drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe3/0x160
[<00000000191784d9>] nouveau_gem_ioctl_new+0x6e/0xd0
[<00000000159678df>] drm_ioctl_kernel+0x8c/0xd0
[<00000000fbaa6154>] drm_ioctl+0x1c4/0x360
[<000000006833fe15>] nouveau_drm_ioctl+0x63/0xb0
Wondering if those are real leaks or just false positives.
For now I marked `tags' as kmemleak_not_leak(); but most
likely it's utterly wrong.
Any thoughts?
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
index e85a08ecd9da..cd46f54c5c32 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <core/mm.h>
#include <subdev/fb.h>
#include <subdev/instmem.h>
+#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
void
nvkm_memory_tags_put(struct nvkm_memory *memory, struct nvkm_device *device,
@@ -92,6 +93,7 @@ nvkm_memory_tags_get(struct nvkm_memory *memory, struct nvkm_device *device,
refcount_set(&tags->refcount, 1);
mutex_unlock(&fb->subdev.mutex);
+ kmemleak_not_leak(tags);
*ptags = tags;
return 0;
}
--
2.21.0
_______________________________________________
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: drm/nouveau/core/memory: kmemleak 684 new suspected memory leaks
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:13:40 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190517061340.GA709@jagdpanzerIV> (raw)
Hello,
5.1.0-next-20190517
I'm looking at quite a lot of kmemleak reports coming from
drm/nouveau/core/memory, all of which are:
unreferenced object 0xffff8deec27c4ac0 (size 16):
comm "Web Content", pid 5309, jiffies 4309675011 (age 68.076s)
hex dump (first 16 bytes):
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<0000000081f2894f>] nvkm_memory_tags_get+0x8e/0x130
[<000000007cd7c0bc>] gf100_vmm_valid+0x196/0x2f0
[<0000000070cc6d67>] nvkm_vmm_map+0xa8/0x360
[<00000000ab678644>] nvkm_vram_map+0x48/0x50
[<00000000d8176378>] nvkm_uvmm_mthd+0x658/0x770
[<00000000463fca5a>] nvkm_ioctl+0xdf/0x177
[<000000000afc4996>] nvif_object_mthd+0xd4/0x100
[<000000002f7a7385>] nvif_vmm_map+0xeb/0x100
[<00000000ef2537ed>] nouveau_mem_map+0x79/0xd0
[<0000000014ddc0cf>] nouveau_vma_new+0x19d/0x1c0
[<00000000f99888a1>] nouveau_gem_object_open+0xd4/0x140
[<000000009cd25861>] drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe3/0x160
[<00000000191784d9>] nouveau_gem_ioctl_new+0x6e/0xd0
[<00000000159678df>] drm_ioctl_kernel+0x8c/0xd0
[<00000000fbaa6154>] drm_ioctl+0x1c4/0x360
[<000000006833fe15>] nouveau_drm_ioctl+0x63/0xb0
Wondering if those are real leaks or just false positives.
For now I marked `tags' as kmemleak_not_leak(); but most
likely it's utterly wrong.
Any thoughts?
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
index e85a08ecd9da..cd46f54c5c32 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/core/memory.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <core/mm.h>
#include <subdev/fb.h>
#include <subdev/instmem.h>
+#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
void
nvkm_memory_tags_put(struct nvkm_memory *memory, struct nvkm_device *device,
@@ -92,6 +93,7 @@ nvkm_memory_tags_get(struct nvkm_memory *memory, struct nvkm_device *device,
refcount_set(&tags->refcount, 1);
mutex_unlock(&fb->subdev.mutex);
+ kmemleak_not_leak(tags);
*ptags = tags;
return 0;
}
--
2.21.0
next reply other threads:[~2019-05-17 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-17 6:13 Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2019-05-17 6:13 ` drm/nouveau/core/memory: kmemleak 684 new suspected memory leaks Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-17 6:31 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-17 6:45 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-17 7:27 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-17 7:35 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190517061340.GA709@jagdpanzerIV \
--to=sergey.senozhatsky.work-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=airlied-cv59FeDIM0c@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bskeggs-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=daniel-/w4YWyX8dFk@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=nouveau-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.