Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>
To: Sergey Ostanevich <sergos@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 2/3] core: fix resources leak in memory profiler
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 12:33:56 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201230093356.GQ14702@root> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FAFF0B60-DA27-481A-98A5-40B811613643@tarantool.org>

Hi!

On 30.12.20, Sergey Ostanevich wrote:
> Serge, can you point me to a branch please?

https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/skaplun/gh-noticket-misc-memprof-fixes

> 
> > On 30 Dec 2020, at 12:06, Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Sergey,
> > 
> > Thanks for the patch! LGTM except the wording in commit message
> > (consider the comments below).
> > 
> > Side note: I want to notice that with on_start callback things would be
> > clearer. Let's return to this again later.
> > 
> > On 30.12.20, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> >> When the profiler is failing to start with error different from
> > 
> > Typo: s/is failing/fails/.
> > Typo: s/with error/with the error/.
> > 
> >> PROFILE_ERRIO neither a file stream is closed nor ctx is freed
> >> in case of incorrect return status checking.
> > 
> > Strictly saying there are two problems:
> > * Possible leakage for PROFILE_ERRRUN
> > * Double free for PROFILE_ERRIO
> > 
> > So I propose the following wording:
> > 
> > | When memory profiler fails to start with PROFILE_ERRRUN status both
> > | stream and ctx are not released. At the same time when memory profiler
> > | fails to start with the PROFILE_ERRIO status both stream and ctx are
> > | released twice. Both cases occur due to invalid return status checking.
> > 
> >> 
> >> To avoid this behaviour on_stop callback is called manually inside
> > 
> > Minor: s/To avoid this behaviour/To fix the leakage/.
> > 
> >> the profiler when error on start is occurring. Checks in
> > 
> > Typo: s/is occuring/occurs/.
> > 
> >> misc.memprof.start() are omitted.
> >> 
> >> Follows up tarantool/tarantool#5442
> >> ---
> >> 
> >> * How patch was checked:
> >> Before patch you can occur the error like:
> >> | $ src/luajit -e '
> >> | local f, msg, errno = misc.memprof.start("/tmp/tmp_memprofile.bin")
> >> | misc.memprof.start("/tmp/tmp_memprofile.bin") print(f,msg,errno)
> >> | '
> >> | true    nil     nil
> >> | luajit: lj_state.c:178: close_state: Assertion `g->gc.total == sizeof(GG_State)' failed.
> >> This patch fixes it.
> >> 
> >> * Why this assertion is not failed in tests (we have the test with same
> >> functionality)?
> >> This assertion failed inside close_state. Tarantool in some reason
> >> doesn't call lua_close on stop. It's weird to me. I'll try to find an
> >> explanation and will create a ticket.
> >> 
> >> * Why I don't create a test case.
> >> The best idea is to do something like this and waiting for OOM:
> >> | for _ = 1, 10000 do
> >> |   misc.memprof.start("/tmp/tmp_memprofile.bin")
> >> | end
> >> But it's disgusting, so as I've discussed with Igor offline test case
> >> will be ommited.
> > 
> > Side note: The test aims to hit LUA_ERRMEM and need to be run for a long
> > time. The exact reason we didn't face this failure is the omitted
> > <lua_close> in Tarantool.
> > 
> >> 
> >> src/lib_misc.c   | 4 ----
> >> src/lj_memprof.c | 8 ++++++--
> >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >> 
> > 
> > <snipped>
> > 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 2.28.0
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Best regards,
> > IM
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Kaplun

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-30  9:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-29 22:22 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 0/3] LuaJIT memory profiler bug fixes Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-29 22:22 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 1/3] misc: fix build with disabled memory profiler Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  8:49   ` Igor Munkin
2020-12-30  8:52     ` Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  9:42       ` Sergey Ostanevich
2020-12-29 22:22 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 2/3] core: fix resources leak in " Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  9:06   ` Igor Munkin
2020-12-30  9:31     ` Sergey Ostanevich
2020-12-30  9:33       ` Sergey Kaplun [this message]
2020-12-30  9:32     ` Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  9:53       ` Sergey Ostanevich
2020-12-29 22:22 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/3] core: remove excess assertion inside memprof Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  9:39   ` Igor Munkin
2020-12-30  9:50     ` Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30 10:50       ` Sergey Ostanevich
2020-12-30 11:06         ` Sergey Kaplun
2020-12-30  8:24 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 0/3] LuaJIT memory profiler bug fixes Alexander V. Tikhonov
2020-12-30 11:20 ` Igor Munkin

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=20201230093356.GQ14702@root \
    --to=skaplun@tarantool.org \
    --cc=sergos@tarantool.org \
    --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 2/3] core: fix resources leak in memory profiler' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox