From: jeffy <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@padovan.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Fix memory leak in play_deferred
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:16:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <596D6F6A.1090004@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1500305216.16072.2.camel@suse.com>
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for your reply.
On 07/17/2017 11:26 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 12.07.2017, 10:27 +0800 schrieb jeffy:
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> Thanx for your comments, and sorry for reply late.
>>
>>
>>> If you do that you have to change submit_tx_urb() to be called under a
>>> spinlock.
>>
>> sorry, why we need that? since submit_tx_urb is basically
>> usb_anchor_urb/usb_submit_urb/usb_free_urb
>
> You need to fix the GFP_KERNEL therein.
oh, i see the problem.
>
>>>> or referenced, but the caller would unref it himself
>>>> later?
>>>
>>> The caller is responsible for its own references.
>> hmm, maybe unref it in the complete callback(btusb_tx_complete?), and if
>> we do so, we may need to detect which urb came from here...
>
> I do not get your reasoning there. If an URB has executed, it belongs
> onto the anchor for URBs to be used again.
the urbs we submit here are referenced but unanchored, so i think we can:
1/ unreference it here and put it in tx_anchor, and let urb core to do
the unachor(and unreference)
or
2/ we unreference it in the complete callback.
i'll send a new version for 2/
>
>>>> and for tx_anchor, we put urb in it, and kill them all during suspending
>>>> to prevent transfer. so i guess it would be safe to put deferred urb in
>>>> to it after resume too?
>>>> but i don't know much about usb/btusb, so i could be wrong all about that :)
>>>
>>> IIRC the reason for directly submitting them was the spinlock.
>> sorry, i'm not clear about this, could you help to explain more? do you
>> mean txlock?
>
> Yes
>
> Regards
> Oliver
>
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-18 2:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-22 10:10 [RFC PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Fix memory leak in play_deferred Jeffy Chen
2017-06-22 10:21 ` Marcel Holtmann
[not found] ` <594C8F0D.4000100@rock-chips.com>
[not found] ` <1499168300.17946.3.camel@neukum.org>
2017-07-12 2:27 ` jeffy
2017-07-17 15:26 ` Oliver Neukum
2017-07-18 2:16 ` jeffy [this message]
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=596D6F6A.1090004@rock-chips.com \
--to=jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
--cc=johan.hedberg@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=oneukum@suse.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox