On 16.03.2023 17:39, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 05:32:38PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.03.2023 17:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:56:29PM +0000, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>>> +static inline void refcnt_get(refcnt_t *refcnt)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int old = atomic_add_unless(&refcnt->refcnt, 1, 0);
>>>
>>> Occurred to me while looking at the next patch:
>>>
>>> Don't you also need to print a warning (and saturate the counter
>>> maybe?) if old == 0, as that would imply the caller is attempting
>>> to take a reference of an object that should be destroyed? IOW: it
>>> would point to some kind of memory leak.
>>
>> Hmm, I notice the function presently returns void. I think what to do
>> when the counter is zero needs leaving to the caller. See e.g.
>> get_page() which will simply indicate failure to the caller in case
>> the refcnt is zero. (There overflow handling also is left to the
>> caller ... All that matters is whether a ref can be acquired.)
>
> Hm, likely. I guess pages never go away even when it's refcount
> reaches 0.
>
> For the pdev case attempting to take a refcount on an object that has
> 0 refcounts implies that the caller is using leaked memory, as the
> point an object reaches 0 it supposed to be destroyed.
Hmm, my thinking was that a device would remain at refcnt 0 until it is
actually removed, i.e. refcnt == 0 being a prereq for pci_remove_device()
to be willing to do anything at all. But maybe that's not a viable model.
Jan
