Re: [PATCH] PM / Hibernation: Fix *massive* memory leak at early exits in hibernation

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 02:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2011 05:15 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>> On Mon 2011-11-21 23:25:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 21, 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >>>>> At some of the early exit points during hibernation (exiting either due
> >>>>> to failure or after a successful hibernation test, the memory pre-allocated
> >>>>> for hibernation is not freed up. And this is *very* serious, because, during
> >>>>> pre-allocation, it could have allocated upto a few *gigabytes* of memory!
> >>>>> And hence, if a hibernation fails or even if we run some hibernation tests
> >>>>> using the 'pm_test' framework, the system is rendered unstable due to memory
> >>>>> becoming signifantly lower. Fix this bug.
> >>>>
> >>>> While the observation is valid, I'd prefer to do something like the patch
> >>>> below.
> >>>
> >>> The code slowly becomes goto maze :-(.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree.. It is already quite a mess.
> >>
> >>>> @@ -357,12 +357,14 @@ int hibernation_snapshot(int platform_mo
> >>>>  		 * successful freezer test.
> >>>>  		 */
> >>>>  		freezer_test_done = true;
> >>>> -		goto Close;
> >>>> +		goto Cleanup;
> >>>>  	}
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	error = dpm_prepare(PMSG_FREEZE);
> >>>> -	if (error)
> >>>> -		goto Complete_devices;
> >>>> +	if (error) {
> >>>> +		dpm_complete(msg);
> >>>> +		goto Cleanup;
> >>>> +	}
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps dpm_prepare should be changed to clean after itself in the
> >>> error case? That is the normal convention AFAICT....
> >>>
> >>
> >> If the intention here is to merely clean up hibernation_snapshot() code,
> >> I would not prefer to change the behaviour of dpm_prepare(), considering
> >> things like, what parameter should we pass to dpm_complete(); is the
> >> resultant behaviour change in dpm_suspend_start() correct or not; what
> >> happens to all the code that uses the nice pair: dpm_suspend_start() and
> >> dpm_resume_end() and so on.
> >>
> >> Perhaps there are bigger issues involved there, since I observed on a brief
> >> look that the current code doesn't seem to strictly follow the above
> >> convention that whoever called dpm_prepare() should call dpm_complete()
> >> upon failure. Or may be its doing the right thing.. I don't know.
> >>
> >> But anyway, the good news is, even without changing dpm_prepare()'s
> >> behaviour, we can clean up quite a bit of code in hibernation_snapshot(),
> >> as it is.
> >>
> >> The first patch below does the cleanup, the second patch fixes the memory
> >> leak and applies on top of the first patch.
> > 
> > Wait, wait.  These changes can be made in the 3.3 merge window, while I'd
> > like the fix the bug _now_.
> > 
> > Does anyone have any _technical_ problem with my patch posted previously
> > in this thread?
> > 
> 
> Technically, your patch is fine :-)
> 
> Acked-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

Please feel free to make the cleanup on top of it.

Rafael