On 2/27/20 9:41 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 27.02.20 03:50, Pan Nengyuan wrote:
This patch fix memleaks when we call tests/qtest/cpu-plug-test on s390x. The
leak stack is as follow:
Direct leak of 48 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x7fb43c7cd970 in __interceptor_calloc (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xef970)
#1 0x7fb43be2149d in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x5249d)
#2 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_full
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
#3 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
#4 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_ns
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
#5 0x558ba96da716 in s390_cpu_initfn
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/target/s390x/cpu.c:285
#6 0x558ba9c969ab in object_init_with_type
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:372
#7 0x558ba9c9eb5f in object_initialize_with_type
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:516
#8 0x558ba9c9f053 in object_new_with_type
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:684
#9 0x558ba967ede6 in s390x_new_cpu
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c:64
#10 0x558ba99764b3 in hmp_cpu_add
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/core/machine-hmp-cmds.c:57
#11 0x558ba9b1c27f in handle_hmp_command
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/hmp.c:1082
#12 0x558ba96c1b02 in qmp_human_monitor_command
/mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/misc.c:142
Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.ro...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com>
---
Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-s3...@nongnu.org
---
v2->v1:
- Similarly to other cleanups, move timer_new into realize(Suggested by
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
v3->v2:
- Also do the timer_free in unrealize, it seems more balance.
---
As I already said, I think this is init and not realize stuff. Do we
have a convention now and documented that?
The clearer doc I read so far is this post:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg680187.html
(but see the thread for more helpful comments)
Another thread that you might find interesting is "how to handle QOM
'container' objects whose contents depend on QOM properties?"
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg511703.html
Anyhow, I don't really care
[...]
Well, looking at the time spent on these series and their review, having
it better documented might save time the whole community.
@@ -453,6 +466,7 @@ static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
device_class_set_parent_realize(dc, s390_cpu_realizefn,
&scc->parent_realize);
+ dc->unrealize = s390_cpu_unrealizefn;
Shouldn't we use device_class_set_parent_unrealize?
