From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB83145B35 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.32 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725443455; cv=none; b=ZH/DAsd4H9lYm1vs27u5+DFocOquRjCOjYbUsRI2c0MeRyofJPhOJzqGvfwYrJ4nTUxc+Y7Y4r2ekNUdVKjbSL5lSVmehrav/N3RBqR85KEB16O5SquC+qBgVOGPVGUekXUA3blC53Y5tdlc5KyRQ8uvklfzOTr2NYW8rVZz/BM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725443455; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JGnFHr77G379PpB6Dr0hWdy2WMMB6oV9BeQxLhM5amU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Q+KMvBUdImr4E5qz851ZyXtyX2ZCXhz3I9yH/WX5IZd6OpKdCOPSUtEWfWiBV+sqeQiRYwNvdXq2uHh0b1ySdinImCVxdaxtRQGCgowO2N3eVN8/62fvVzobZ0NHUA9rV6eI2D2EdMMp1ftisDsfzPNpihfM5G0Mkl3CH5U5uvI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.32 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.17]) by szxga06-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WzHkT09fkz1xwns; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:48:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.146]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE5F1A0188; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:50:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:50:49 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:50:48 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call: Handle module init failure correctly in static_call_del_module() Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Gleixner , , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Christophe Leroy , Josh Poimboeuf References: <87cylj7v6x.ffs@tglx> <3e158999-c93a-a4e3-85a9-2d6bfc1ccee7@huawei.com> <877cbr7qed.ffs@tglx> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <877cbr7qed.ffs@tglx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) On 2024/9/4 16:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04 2024 at 16:03, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> On 2024/9/4 15:08, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> So the check must be: >>> >>> if (!static_call_key_has_mods(key)) >>> break; >> >> Hi, Thomas, >> >> with this patch, the issue not occurs again， >> >> but there are some memory leak here same to the following problem: > > That has absolutely nothing to do with static calls and the memory > allocation failure case there. > > The module passed all preparatory steps, otherwise it would not be able > to create a kmem_cache from the module init() function: > > kmem_cache_create+0x11/0x20 > do_one_initcall+0xdc/0x550 > do_init_module+0x241/0x630 > > amdgpu_init() > > r = amdgpu_sync_init(); > if (r) > goto error_sync; > > r = amdgpu_fence_slab_init(); > if (r) > goto error_fence; > > > > return pci_register_driver(&amdgpu_kms_pci_driver); > > error_fence: > amdgpu_sync_fini(); > error_sync: > return r; > > Can you spot the problem? I see, let me test it. > > Thanks, > > tglx