Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Larry Finger wrote: > On 06/07/2016 04:39 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: >>> >>> I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). >>> >>> Please excuse

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Larry Finger wrote: > On 06/07/2016 04:39 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: >>> >>> I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). >>> >>> Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/07/2016 04:39 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something like this ... (Note tabs eaten by gmail). diff

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/07/2016 04:39 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something like this ... (Note tabs eaten by gmail). diff

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > like this ... > (Note tabs eaten by gmail). > > diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > like this ... > (Note tabs eaten by gmail). > > diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:06:05PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > The leak is definitely not related to mkfs. At the moment, my system has > been up about 26 hours, and has generated 162 of these leaks without ever > doing a single mkfs. In addition, the box say idle for almost 12 of those >

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:06:05PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > The leak is definitely not related to mkfs. At the moment, my system has > been up about 26 hours, and has generated 162 of these leaks without ever > doing a single mkfs. In addition, the box say idle for almost 12 of those >

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/06/2016 11:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've tried to look at

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/06/2016 11:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've tried to look at

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/06/2016 11:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something like this ... (Note tabs eaten by gmail).

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On 06/06/2016 11:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something like this ... (Note tabs eaten by gmail).

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:27:18PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > > like this ...

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:27:18PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > > like this ...

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > like this ... > (Note tabs eaten by gmail). Yeah, that makes sense - oddly enough

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote: > I'm pretty sure it is missing a bio_put() after submit_bio_wait(). > > Please excuse the hack-y patch but I think you need to do something > like this ... > (Note tabs eaten by gmail). Yeah, that makes sense - oddly enough

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't > > make much sense to me. > > > > Could it be that kmemleak can't deal

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't > > make much sense to me. > > > > Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't > make much sense to me. > > Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've > tried to look at the various bio and biovec number entries

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't > make much sense to me. > > Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've > tried to look at the various bio and biovec number entries

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

Hi Catalin, I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've tried to look at the various bio and biovec number entries in /proc/slabinfo, and while they keep changing a bit during

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

Hi Catalin, I've got a few reports of this over the weekend, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Could it be that kmemleak can't deal with the bio_batch logic? I've tried to look at the various bio and biovec number entries in /proc/slabinfo, and while they keep changing a bit during