Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 01/10] lib/ref_tracker: add unlocked leak print helper

[Andrzej Hajda]

On 19.03.2023 23:59, Andi Shyti wrote:

Hi Andrzej,

[...]

diff --git a/lib/ref_tracker.c b/lib/ref_tracker.c
index dc7b14aa3431e2..5e9f90bbf771b0 100644
--- a/lib/ref_tracker.c
+++ b/lib/ref_tracker.c
@@ -14,6 +14,38 @@ struct ref_tracker {
        depot_stack_handle_t    free_stack_handle;
  };

+void __ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,

+                          unsigned int display_limit)

can we call this ref_tracker_dir_print_locked() instead of using
the '__'?

OK, 'locked' convention looks better.

Regards
Andrzej

+{
+       struct ref_tracker *tracker;
+       unsigned int i = 0;
+
+       lockdep_assert_held(&dir->lock);
+
+       list_for_each_entry(tracker, &dir->list, head) {
+               if (i < display_limit) {
+                       pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
+                       if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
+                               stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
+                       i++;
+               } else {
+                       break;
+               }
+       }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ref_tracker_dir_print);
+
+void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir,
+                          unsigned int display_limit)
+{
+       unsigned long flags;
+
+       spin_lock_irqsave(&dir->lock, flags);
+       __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, display_limit);
+       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dir->lock, flags);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_print);
+
  void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
  {
        struct ref_tracker *tracker, *n;
@@ -27,13 +59,13 @@ void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir)
                kfree(tracker);
                dir->quarantine_avail++;
        }
-       list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
-               pr_err("leaked reference.\n");
-               if (tracker->alloc_stack_handle)
-                       stack_depot_print(tracker->alloc_stack_handle);
+       if (!list_empty(&dir->list)) {
+               __ref_tracker_dir_print(dir, 16);
                leak = true;
-               list_del(&tracker->head);
-               kfree(tracker);
+               list_for_each_entry_safe(tracker, n, &dir->list, head) {
+                       list_del(&tracker->head);
+                       kfree(tracker);
+               }

Just thinking whether this should go on a different patch, but I
don't have a strong opinion.

Looks good!

Andi