From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (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 73DBE20F9 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 07:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=idosch.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=idosch.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="jQuDPbIO" Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918FE5C020C; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 02:24:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Jan 2024 02:24:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1704180281; x=1704266681; bh=2sRidRuJgpmzA3ok6Z8thcz4Si/E 71P3fem+BTaKpTg=; b=jQuDPbIOhXqcnl/2XjMpDaMcfl8xMb0wUs6rifmWfVnZ CZyxvBfDg4CzNtJNfrNs4+dOmDN2ncCytkOjYcO8sCmEpGwsUPm4+YJUUPOAVj/c 1Pdv20ipeOaPJCDVwd4xl9BDleAvi9pF1dXCTJSP+GwGS5s4cUStlTvsXWwjArjd 8B4ajb/zsO5pS9vjG3tsbDSazawMBGIULVq9LMj5KUE6UgknAoo+2ovfgp5Q4duv QS/cLYDgUJRzvms0uPwhCqfN2ncTrCDdaQoKBKUk3rslelsN/RifvBtrmxWFSx3E EWX3JjrflNsJvDR7mFxphBRhPWWPrIoJzjdtMqmSPA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdeguddguddtlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefkugho ucfutghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeehhfdtjedviefffeduuddvffegteeiieeguefgudffvdfftdefheeijedt hfejkeenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepihguohhstghhsehiughoshgthhdrohhr gh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i494840e7:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 02:24:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:24:37 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel To: Robin Murphy Cc: joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhangzekun11@huawei.com, john.g.garry@oracle.com, dheerajkumar.srivastava@amd.com, jsnitsel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iommu/iova: Make the rcache depot properly flexible Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 02:23:20PM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/cover.1692641204.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/ > > > > Hi all, > > > > I hope this is good to go now, just fixed the locking (and threw > > lockdep at it to confirm, which of course I should have done to begin > > with...) and picked up tags. > > Hi, > > After pulling the v6.7 changes we started seeing the following memory > leaks [1] of 'struct iova_magazine'. I'm not sure how to reproduce it, > which is why I didn't perform bisection. However, looking at the > mentioned code paths, they seem to have been changed in v6.7 as part of > this patchset. I reverted both patches and didn't see any memory leaks > when running a full regression (~10 hours), but I will repeat it to be > sure. FYI, we didn't see the leaks since reverting these two patches whereas before we saw them almost everyday, so I'm quite sure they introduced the leaks. Thanks