On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 04:18:32PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> For rq, we have three cases getting buffers from virtio core:
>
> 1. virtqueue_get_buf{,_ctx}
> 2. virtqueue_detach_unused_buf
> 3. callback for virtqueue_resize
>
> But in commit 295525e29a5b("virtio_net: merge dma operations when
> filling mergeable buffers"), I missed the dma unmap for the #3 case.
>
> That will leak some memory, because I did not release the pages referred
> by the unused buffers.
>
> If we do such script, we will make the system OOM.
>
> while true
> do
> ethtool -G ens4 rx 128
> ethtool -G ens4 rx 256
> free -m
> done
>
> Fixes: 295525e29a5b ("virtio_net: merge dma operations when filling mergeable
> buffers")
> Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanz...@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index d16f592c2061..6423a3a007ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -408,6 +408,17 @@ static struct page *get_a_page(struct receive_queue *rq,
> gfp_t gfp_mask)
> return p;
> }
>
> +static void virtnet_rq_free_buf(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> + struct receive_queue *rq, void *buf)
> +{
> + if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
> + put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> + else if (vi->big_packets)
> + give_pages(rq, buf);
> + else
> + put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> +}
> +
> static void enable_delayed_refill(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> {
> spin_lock_bh(&vi->refill_lock);
> @@ -634,17 +645,6 @@ static void *virtnet_rq_get_buf(struct receive_queue
> *rq, u32 *len, void **ctx)
> return buf;
> }
>
> -static void *virtnet_rq_detach_unused_buf(struct receive_queue *rq)
> -{
> - void *buf;
> -
> - buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(rq->vq);
> - if (buf && rq->do_dma)
> - virtnet_rq_unmap(rq, buf, 0);
> -
> - return buf;
> -}
> -
> static void virtnet_rq_init_one_sg(struct receive_queue *rq, void *buf, u32
> len)
> {
> struct virtnet_rq_dma *dma;
> @@ -1764,7 +1764,7 @@ static void receive_buf(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct
> receive_queue *rq,
> if (unlikely(len < vi->hdr_len + ETH_HLEN)) {
> pr_debug("%s: short packet %i\n", dev->name, len);
> DEV_STATS_INC(dev, rx_length_errors);
> - virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(rq->vq, buf);
> + virtnet_rq_free_buf(vi, rq, buf);
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -4034,14 +4034,15 @@ static void virtnet_sq_free_unused_buf(struct
> virtqueue *vq, void *buf)
> static void virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(struct virtqueue *vq, void *buf)
> {
> struct virtnet_info *vi = vq->vdev->priv;
> + struct receive_queue *rq;
> int i = vq2rxq(vq);
>
> - if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
> - put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> - else if (vi->big_packets)
> - give_pages(&vi->rq[i], buf);
> - else
> - put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> + rq = &vi->rq[i];
> +
> + if (rq->do_dma)
> + virtnet_rq_unmap(rq, buf, 0);
> +
> + virtnet_rq_free_buf(vi, rq, buf);
> }
>
So we have virtnet_rq_free_buf which sounds like it should free any
buf, and we have virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf which is only for unused.
Or so it would seem from names but this is not true.
Better function names?
> static void free_unused_bufs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> @@ -4057,10 +4058,10 @@ static void free_unused_bufs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> - struct receive_queue *rq = &vi->rq[i];
> + struct virtqueue *vq = vi->rq[i].vq;
>
> - while ((buf = virtnet_rq_detach_unused_buf(rq)) != NULL)
> - virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(rq->vq, buf);
> + while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(vq)) != NULL)
> + virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(vq, buf);
> cond_resched();
> }
> }
> --
> 2.32.0.3.g01195cf9f
