Hi,
For the second last trace involving SearchCatCacheList (catcache.c:1691),
the ctlist's members are stored in cl->members array where cl is returned
at the end of SearchCatCacheList.
Maybe this was not accounted for by valgrind ?
Cheers
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:31 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> David, there's a question about a commit of yours below, hence adding
> you.
>
> On 2021-03-16 19:36:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Out of curiosity I poked at this for a little while.
>
> Cool.
>
>
> > It doesn't appear to me that we leak much at all, at least not if you
> > are willing to take "still reachable" blocks as not-leaked.
>
> Well, I think for any sort of automated testing - which I think would be
> useful - we'd really need *no* leaks. I know that I get a few bleats
> whenever I forget to set --leak-check=no. It's also not just postgres
> itself, but some of the helper tools...
>
> And it's not just valgrind, also gcc/clang sanitizers...
>
>
> > What I found out is that we have a lot of issues that seem to devolve
> > to valgrind not being sure that a block is referenced. I identified
> > two main causes of that:
> >
> > (1) We have a pointer, but it doesn't actually point right at the start
> > of the block. A primary culprit here is lists of thingies that use the
> > slist and dlist infrastructure. As an experiment, I moved the dlist_node
> > fields of some popular structs to the beginning, and verified that that
> > silences associated complaints. I'm not sure that we want to insist on
> > put-the-link-first as policy (although if we did, it could provide some
> > notational savings perhaps). However, unless someone knows of a way to
> > teach valgrind about this situation, there may be no other way to silence
> > those leakage complaints. A secondary culprit is people randomly
> applying
> > CACHELINEALIGN or the like to a palloc'd address, so that the address we
> > have isn't pointing right at the block start.
>
> Hm, do you still have a backtrace / suppression for one of those? I
> didn't see any in a quick (*) serial installcheck I just ran. Or I
> wasn't able to pinpoint them to this issue.
>
>
> I think the run might have shown a genuine leak:
>
> ==2048803== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 139 of
> 906
> ==2048803== at 0x89D2EA: palloc (mcxt.c:975)
> ==2048803== by 0x2392D3: heap_beginscan (heapam.c:1198)
> ==2048803== by 0x264E8F: table_beginscan_strat (tableam.h:918)
> ==2048803== by 0x265994: systable_beginscan (genam.c:453)
> ==2048803== by 0x83C2D1: SearchCatCacheMiss (catcache.c:1359)
> ==2048803== by 0x83C197: SearchCatCacheInternal (catcache.c:1299)
> ==2048803== by 0x83BE9A: SearchCatCache1 (catcache.c:1167)
> ==2048803== by 0x85876A: SearchSysCache1 (syscache.c:1134)
> ==2048803== by 0x84CDB3: RelationInitTableAccessMethod (relcache.c:1795)
> ==2048803== by 0x84F807: RelationBuildLocalRelation (relcache.c:3554)
> ==2048803== by 0x303C9D: heap_create (heap.c:395)
> ==2048803== by 0x305790: heap_create_with_catalog (heap.c:1291)
> ==2048803== by 0x41A327: DefineRelation (tablecmds.c:885)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C96B6: ProcessUtilitySlow (utility.c:1131)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C948A: standard_ProcessUtility (utility.c:1034)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C865F: ProcessUtility (utility.c:525)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C7409: PortalRunUtility (pquery.c:1159)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C7636: PortalRunMulti (pquery.c:1305)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C6B11: PortalRun (pquery.c:779)
> ==2048803== by 0x6C05AB: exec_simple_query (postgres.c:1173)
> ==2048803==
> {
> <insert_a_suppression_name_here>
> Memcheck:Leak
> match-leak-kinds: definite
> fun:palloc
> fun:heap_beginscan
> fun:table_beginscan_strat
> fun:systable_beginscan
> fun:SearchCatCacheMiss
> fun:SearchCatCacheInternal
> fun:SearchCatCache1
> fun:SearchSysCache1
> fun:RelationInitTableAccessMethod
> fun:RelationBuildLocalRelation
> fun:heap_create
> fun:heap_create_with_catalog
> fun:DefineRelation
> fun:ProcessUtilitySlow
> fun:standard_ProcessUtility
> fun:ProcessUtility
> fun:PortalRunUtility
> fun:PortalRunMulti
> fun:PortalRun
> fun:exec_simple_query
> }
>
> Since 56788d2156fc heap_beginscan() allocates
> scan->rs_base.rs_private =
> palloc(sizeof(ParallelBlockTableScanWorkerData));
> in heap_beginscan(). But doesn't free it in heap_endscan().
>
> In most of the places heap scans are begun inside transient contexts,
> but not always. In the above trace for example
> RelationBuildLocalRelation switched to CacheMemoryContext, and nothing
> switched to something else.
>
> I'm a bit confused about the precise design of rs_private /
> ParallelBlockTableScanWorkerData, specifically why it's been added to
> TableScanDesc, instead of just adding it to HeapScanDesc? And why is it
> allocated unconditionally, instead of just for parallel scans?
>
>
> I don't think this is a false positive, even though it theoretically
> could be freed by resetting CacheMemoryContext (see below)?
>
>
> I saw a lot of false positives from autovacuum workers, because
> AutovacMemCxt is never deleted, and because table_toast_map is created
> in TopMemoryContext. Adding an explicit
> MemoryContextDelete(AutovacMemCxt) and parenting table_toast_map in that
> shut that up.
>
>
> Which brings me to the question why allocations in CacheMemoryContext,
> AutovacMemCxt are considered to be "lost", even though they're still
> "reachable" via a context reset. I think valgrind ends up treating
> memory allocated via memory contexts that still exist at process end as
> lost, regardless of being reachable via the the memory pool (from
> valgrinds view). Which I guess actually makes sense, for things like
> TopMemoryContext and CacheContext - anything not reachable by means
> other than a context reset is effectively lost for those.
>
> For autovac launcher / worker it seems like a sensible thing to just
> delete AutovacMemCxt.
>
>
>
> > (2) The only pointer to the start of a block is actually somewhere within
> > the block. This is common in dynahash tables, where we allocate a slab
> > of entries in a single palloc and then thread them together. Each entry
> > should have exactly one referencing pointer, but that pointer is more
> > likely to be elsewhere within the same palloc block than in the external
> > hash bucket array. AFAICT, all cases except where the slab's first entry
> > is pointed to by a hash bucket pointer confuse valgrind to some extent.
> > I was able to hack around this by preventing dynahash from allocating
> > more than one hash entry per palloc, but I wonder if there's a better
> way.
>
> Hm. For me the number of leaks seem to stay the same with or without
> your changes related to this. Is this a USE_VALGRIND build?
>
> I'm using valgrind-3.16.1
>
>
> > Attached is a very crude hack, not meant for commit, that hacks things
> > up enough to greatly reduce the number of complaints with
> > "--leak-check=full".
> >
> > One thing I've failed to silence so far is a bunch of entries like
> >
> > ==00:00:03:56.088 3467702== 1,861 bytes in 67 blocks are definitely lost
> in loss record 1,290 of 1,418
> > ==00:00:03:56.088 3467702== at 0x950650: MemoryContextAlloc
> (mcxt.c:827)
> > ==00:00:03:56.088 3467702== by 0x951710: MemoryContextStrdup
> (mcxt.c:1179)
> > ==00:00:03:56.088 3467702== by 0x91C86E: RelationInitIndexAccessInfo
> (relcache.c:1444)
> > ==00:00:03:56.088 3467702== by 0x91DA9C: RelationBuildDesc
> (relcache.c:1200)
> >
> > which is complaining about the memory context identifiers for system
> > indexes' rd_indexcxt contexts. Those are surely not being leaked in
> > any real sense. I suspect that this has something to do with valgrind
> > not counting the context->ident fields as live pointers, but I don't
> > have enough valgrind-fu to fix that.
>
> Yea. I suspect it's related to the fact that we mark the memory as a
> valgrind mempool, I'll try to investigate.
>
>
> I do see a bunch of leaks bleats below fun:plpgsql_compile that I don't
> yet understand. E.g.
>
> ==2054558== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 284 of
> 913
> ==2054558== at 0x89D389: palloc (mcxt.c:975)
> ==2054558== by 0x518732: new_list (list.c:134)
> ==2054558== by 0x518C0C: lappend (list.c:341)
> ==2054558== by 0x83CAE7: SearchCatCacheList (catcache.c:1691)
> ==2054558== by 0x859A9C: SearchSysCacheList (syscache.c:1447)
> ==2054558== by 0x313192: FuncnameGetCandidates (namespace.c:975)
> ==2054558== by 0x313D91: FunctionIsVisible (namespace.c:1450)
> ==2054558== by 0x7C2891: format_procedure_extended (regproc.c:375)
> ==2054558== by 0x7C27C3: format_procedure (regproc.c:324)
> ==2054558== by 0xA7693E1: do_compile (pl_comp.c:348)
> ==2054558== by 0xA769130: plpgsql_compile (pl_comp.c:224)
>
> and
>
> ==2054558== 30 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 225 of
> 913
> ==2054558== at 0x89D389: palloc (mcxt.c:975)
> ==2054558== by 0x3ADDAE: downcase_identifier (scansup.c:52)
> ==2054558== by 0x3ADD85: downcase_truncate_identifier (scansup.c:39)
> ==2054558== by 0x3AB5E4: core_yylex (scan.l:1032)
> ==2054558== by 0xA789B2D: internal_yylex (pl_scanner.c:321)
> ==2054558== by 0xA7896E3: plpgsql_yylex (pl_scanner.c:152)
> ==2054558== by 0xA780015: plpgsql_yyparse (pl_gram.c:1945)
> ==2054558== by 0xA76A652: do_compile (pl_comp.c:788)
> ==2054558== by 0xA769130: plpgsql_compile (pl_comp.c:224)
> ==2054558== by 0xA78948F: plpgsql_validator (pl_handler.c:539)
>
> Based on the quick look I had (dinner is calling) I didn't yet
> understand how plpgsql_compile_tmp_cxt error handling works.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
>
> (*) or not so quick, I had to figure out why valgrind was so slow. It
> turned out that I had typed shared_buffers=32MB into
> shared_buffers=32GB...
>
>
>
