From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6B52BF017 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752662429; cv=none; b=hDu4hO3d+0U2Q074w7oozsSBj0n+kXYL7lFYR0b4kCZwt44f6ET0DQYkeR0ahcCqWjxZLVyznqWvffQXPJBg4M9UJwdHt5U+AYajxGvHwjey64mhdC/Yscg5pSjnIWUJcOtSH7oLlHdzp6wY6PKjB1PsKwtDPS8sGzfCH6jwQI8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752662429; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mu1ScGbck9q9MWwoSAExzCntTfv6hbeKLVl0usR+ybc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=i3iUZnpdMcxoNobsCY9OCH0NgotxEHeyMmKoekDjlqb41X7/x4TaAYm8BlOL8pNDMHYR0QHQuV6jBluFAQR75TsNshxVpLMZY9J+y+xLj/JhPZxHlplISwwPbvZ/S9joBJAgZdwLRrFjuqrL67NeQ28bkcPkQCmJcp73NCb50F0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=YoaOnCDG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="YoaOnCDG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1752662427; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jUmwdkpVWgrx6g8+0Yxmx/sQbjsE7kvd7nlNgws5rzs=; b=YoaOnCDGktfAFCMBbJfol6T2clPPjj8jaRmc1LTuVjcbrs5q9bvT5jeZBlR9nbti+t0Yah o6eh5t05Vjk3S7huciPQNHZwO2ckseiC88Vu9MqQRJowXWEM1MOr38znEuiDjDJ0bcHFBV aNfN/MwQ1YRk+c5MjUv5IvFAlsqBVd0= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-623-LU0V9BbOMYyo4t5irbC1kw-1; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 06:40:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: LU0V9BbOMYyo4t5irbC1kw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: LU0V9BbOMYyo4t5irbC1kw_1752662422 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C22221956089; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:40:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.29]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9131B195E772; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:40:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:40:10 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Yu Kuai Cc: Jens Axboe , Yi Zhang , linux-block , Shinichiro Kawasaki , "yukuai (C)" Subject: Re: [bug report] kmemleak issue observed during blktests Message-ID: References: <08f3f802-e3c3-b851-b4ee-912eade04c6f@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <08f3f802-e3c3-b851-b4ee-912eade04c6f@huaweicloud.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 03:50:34PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > Hi, > > 在 2025/07/16 9:54, Jens Axboe 写道: > > unreferenced object 0xffff8882e7fbb000 (size 2048): > > comm "check", pid 10460, jiffies 4324980514 > > hex dump (first 32 bytes): > > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > > backtrace (crc c47e6a37): > > __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x55d/0x7a0 > > sbitmap_init_node+0x15a/0x6a0 > > kyber_init_hctx+0x316/0xb90 > > blk_mq_init_sched+0x416/0x580 > > elevator_switch+0x18b/0x630 > > elv_update_nr_hw_queues+0x219/0x2c0 > > __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues+0x36a/0x6f0 > > blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues+0x3a/0x60 > > find_fallback+0x510/0x540 [nbd] > > This is werid, and I check the code that it's impossible > blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues() can be called from find_fallback(). Yes. > Does kmemleak show wrong backtrace? I tried to run blktests block/005 over nbd, but can't reproduce this kmemleak report after setting up the detector. Yi, can you share your reproducer? Thanks Ming