On 04/03/2017 10:24 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 09:07:02AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > >> At this point, it looks like no one is calling >> throttle_group_unregister_blk() as a result of the 'device_del', >> which leaves stale memory around > > I see, I can also reproduce this very easily. > > I wonder if it's not enough to simply disable I/O limits when a > BlockBackend is deleted?
Seems to pass my testing. Do you want to submit it as a formal patch, or
shall I?
>
> --- a/block/block-backend.c
> +++ b/block/block-backend.c
> @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ static void blk_delete(BlockBackend *blk)
> assert(!blk->refcnt);
> assert(!blk->name);
> assert(!blk->dev);
> + if (blk->public.throttle_state) {
> + blk_io_limits_disable(blk);
> + }
> if (blk->root) {
> blk_remove_bs(blk);
> }
>
> Berto
>
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
