From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: "Michał Pecio" <michal.pecio@gmail.com>
Cc: WeitaoWang-oc@zhaoxin.com, mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
surenb@google.com, kent.overstreet@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION 6.17-rc3] usb/xhci: possible memory leak after suspend/resume cycle.
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 18:17:26 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5051e27a.2ba3.198fa7b5f31.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250830114828.3dd8ed56.michal.pecio@gmail.com>
At 2025-08-30 17:48:28, "Michał Pecio" <michal.pecio@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 02:13:54 +0800, David Wang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been watching kernel memory usage for drivers for a while, via /proc/allocinfo.
>> After upgrade to 6.17-rc3, I notice memory usage behavior changes for usb drivers:
>>
>> Before rc3, after several suspend/resume cycles, usb devices's memory usage is very stable:
>>
>> 40960 5 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:980 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_virt_device 9
>> 1024 1 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:841 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_tt_info 2
>> 320 10 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:461 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_container_ctx 31
>> 1920 15 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:377 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_ring_alloc 31
>> 112 12 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:49 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 32
>> 1792 28 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:38 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 59
>>
>> But with rc3, the memory usage increase after each suspend/resume cycle:
>>
>> #1:
>> 49152 6 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:980 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_virt_device 9
>> 1024 1 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:841 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_tt_info 2
>> 384 12 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:461 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_container_ctx 32
>> 2176 17 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:377 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_ring_alloc 32
>> 128 14 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:49 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 34
>> 2048 32 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:38 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 61
>> #2:
>> 57344 7 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:980 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_virt_device 13
>> 1024 1 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:841 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_tt_info 3
>> 448 14 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:461 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_container_ctx 46
>> 2432 19 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:377 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_ring_alloc 43
>> 144 16 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:49 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 44
>> 2304 36 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:38 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 82
>> #3:
>> 65536 8 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:980 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_virt_device 17
>> 1024 1 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:841 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_tt_info 4
>> 512 16 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:461 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_alloc_container_ctx 60
>> 2688 21 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:377 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_ring_alloc 54
>> 160 18 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:49 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 54
>> 2560 40 drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c:38 [xhci_hcd] func:xhci_segment_alloc 103
>>
>> The memory increasing pattern keeps going on for each suspend/resume afterwards, I am not
>> sure whether those memory would be released sometime later.
>>
>> And in kernel log, two lines of error always showed up after suspend/resume:
>>
>> [ 295.613598] xhci_hcd 0000:03:00.0: dma_pool_destroy xHCI ring segments busy
>> [ 295.613605] xhci_hcd 0000:03:00.0: dma_pool_destroy xHCI input/output contexts busy
>
>Hi,
>
>Good work, looks like suspend/resume is a little understested corner
>of this driver.
>
>Did you check whether the same leak occurs if you simply disconnect
>a device or if it's truly unique to suspend?
>
>> And bisect narrow down to commit 2eb03376151bb8585caa23ed2673583107bb5193(
>> "usb: xhci: Fix slot_id resource race conflict"):
>
>I see a trivial bug which everyone (myself included tbh) missed before.
>Does this help?
>
>diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
>index f11e13f9cdb4..f294032c2ad7 100644
>--- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
>+++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
>@@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ void xhci_free_virt_device(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, struct xhci_virt_device *dev,
> */
> static void xhci_free_virt_devices_depth_first(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, int slot_id)
> {
>- struct xhci_virt_device *vdev;
>+ struct xhci_virt_device *vdev, *tmp_vdev;
> struct list_head *tt_list_head;
> struct xhci_tt_bw_info *tt_info, *next;
> int i;
>@@ -952,8 +952,8 @@ static void xhci_free_virt_devices_depth_first(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, int slot_i
> if (tt_info->slot_id == slot_id) {
> /* are any devices using this tt_info? */
> for (i = 1; i < HCS_MAX_SLOTS(xhci->hcs_params1); i++) {
>- vdev = xhci->devs[i];
>- if (vdev && (vdev->tt_info == tt_info))
>+ tmp_vdev = xhci->devs[i];
>+ if (tmp_vdev && (tmp_vdev->tt_info == tt_info))
> xhci_free_virt_devices_depth_first(
> xhci, i);
I confirmed this *silly* code is the root cause of this memory leak.
And I would suggest simpler code changes (which is what I was testing):
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
index 81eaad87a3d9..c4a6544aa107 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
@@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ static void xhci_free_virt_devices_depth_first(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, int slot_i
out:
/* we are now at a leaf device */
xhci_debugfs_remove_slot(xhci, slot_id);
- xhci_free_virt_device(xhci, vdev, slot_id);
+ xhci_free_virt_device(xhci, xhci->devs[slot_id], slot_id);
}
int xhci_alloc_virt_device(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, int slot_id,
Thanks
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-30 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-29 18:13 David Wang
2025-08-30 9:48 ` Michał Pecio
2025-08-30 10:06 ` David Wang
2025-08-30 10:17 ` David Wang [this message]
2025-09-01 10:14 ` Mathias Nyman
2025-09-01 11:17 ` David Wang
2025-09-02 7:30 ` [PATCH] usb: xhci: Fix xhci_free_virt_devices_depth_first() Michal Pecio
2025-09-02 8:30 ` David Wang
2025-09-02 8:46 ` [PATCH] " Michał Pecio
2025-09-02 9:07 ` Michał Pecio
2025-09-02 10:13 ` Mathias Nyman
2025-09-02 10:55 ` Michał Pecio
2025-09-02 12:58 ` Mathias Nyman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5051e27a.2ba3.198fa7b5f31.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=WeitaoWang-oc@zhaoxin.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
--cc=michal.pecio@gmail.com \
--cc=regressions@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®