Re: [PATCH] drm/scheduler: Fix mem leak when last_scheduled signaled

[Philipp Stanner <phasta@mailbox.org>]

Hello,

subject line: please write "drm/sched" instead of "drm/scheduler". It
has become the norm

On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 14:27 +0800, qianyi liu wrote:
> Problem: If prev(last_scheduled) was already signaled I encountred a

prev(last_scheduled) almost reads like a function call. Maybe write
"prev / last_scheduled"?

> memory leak in drm_sched_entity_fini. This is because the
> prev(last_scheduled) fence is not free properly.

s/free/freed

> 
> Fix: Balance the prev(last_scheduled) fence refcnt when
> dma_fence_add_callback failed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: qianyi liu <liuqianyi125@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> index 69bcf0e99d57..1c0c14bcf726 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> @@ -259,9 +259,12 @@ static void drm_sched_entity_kill(struct
> drm_sched_entity *entity)
>  		struct drm_sched_fence *s_fence = job->s_fence;
>  
>  		dma_fence_get(&s_fence->finished);
> -		if (!prev || dma_fence_add_callback(prev, &job-
> >finish_cb,
> -					  
> drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb))
> +		if (!prev ||
> +		    dma_fence_add_callback(prev, &job->finish_cb,
> +					  
> drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb)) {
> +			dma_fence_put(prev);

But now the fence will also be put when prev == NULL. Is that
intentional? It doesn't seem correct to me from looking at the commit
message, which states "Balance […] refcnt when dma_fence_add_callback
failed"

It didn't get clear to me immediately which dma_fence_get() your new
dma_fence_put() balances. Can you ellaborate on that or maybe write a
comment?

But also be handy of could share the kmemleak trace.


Thanks
P.

>  			drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb(NULL, &job-
> >finish_cb);
> +		}
>  
>  		prev = &s_fence->finished;
>  	}