On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:35:35PM -0800, William Tu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 02:16:24PM -0800, William Tu wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > ovs-vswitchd makes extensive use of RCU to defer freeing memory past the
> >> > latest time that it could be in use by a thread.  Until now, ovs-vswitchd
> >> > has not waited for RCU callbacks to fire before exiting.  This meant that
> >> > in many cases, when ovs-vswitchd exits, many blocks of memory are stuck 
> >> > in
> >> > RCU callback queues, which valgrind often reports as "possible" memory
> >> > leaks.
> >> >
> >> > This commit adds a new function ovsrcu_exit() that waits and fires as 
> >> > many
> >> > RCU callbacks as it reasonably can.  It can only do so for the thread 
> >> > that
> >> > calls it and the thread that calls the callbacks, but generally speaking
> >> > ovs-vswitchd shuts down other threads before it exits anyway, so this is
> >> > pretty good.
> >> >
> >> > In my testing this eliminates most valgrind warnings for tests that run
> >> > ovs-vswitchd.  This ought to make it easier to distinguish new leaks that
> >> > are real from existing non-leaks.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>
> >> > ---
> >>
> >> Looks good to me.
> >> One limitation is that since this patch init the ovs barrier for size=2,
> >> the ovsrcu_exit() can only be used in ovs-vswitchd.  Otherwise users
> >> have to remember to bump up this barrier number.
> >
> > I don't understand that comment.  Can you explain?  Why would other
> > daemons need a larger barrier number?
> 
> We init the postpone_barrier to 2
> + ovs_barrier_init(&postpone_barrier, 2);
> 
> and every daemon calls ovsrcu_exit will call
> +        ovs_barrier_block(&postpone_barrier);
> which increments the counter
> 
> and the ovsrcu_postpone_thread also calls
> +    ovs_barrier_block(&postpone_barrier);
> 
> So if one more daemon calls ovsrcu_exit, then we have to bump the number to 3?

How would daemons share a barrier?  Our daemons don't use shared memory.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to