9:34 a.m.
W dniu 2016-02-09 o 16:12, Michal Privoznik pisze:
On 09.02.2016 13:36, Piotr Rybicki wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> W dniu 2015-11-20 o 11:29, Piotr Rybicki pisze:
>>
>>> I've seen some of theese already. The bug is actually not in libvirt but
>>> in gluster's libgfapi library, so any change in libvirt won't help.
>>>
>>> This was tracked in gluster as:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093594
>>>
>>> I suggest you update the gluster library to resolve this issue.
>>>
>
> I've tested further this issue.
>
> I have to report, that mem leak still exists in latest versions
> gluster: 3.7.6
> libvirt 1.3.1
>
> mem leak exists even when starting domain (virsh start DOMAIN) which
> acesses drivie via libgfapi (although leak is much smaller than with
> gluster 3.5.X).
>
> when using drive via file (gluster fuse mount), there is no mem leak
> when starting domain.
>
> my drive definition (libgfapi):
>
> <disk type='network' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='writethrough'
iothread='1'/>
> <source protocol='gluster' name='pool/disk-sys.img'>
> <host name='X.X.X.X' transport='rdma'/>
> </source>
> <blockio logical_block_size='512'
physical_block_size='32768'/>
> <target dev='vda' bus='virtio'/>
> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00'
slot='0x04'
> function='0x0'/>
> </disk>
>
>
> valgrind details (libgfapi):
>
> # valgrind --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes
> --child-silent-after-fork=yes libvirtd --listen 2> libvirt-gfapi.log
>
> ==6532== Memcheck, a memory error detector
> ==6532== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
> ==6532== Using Valgrind-3.11.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
> ==6532== Command: libvirtd --listen
> ==6532==
> ==6532== Warning: noted but unhandled ioctl 0x89a2 with no
> size/direction hints.
> ==6532== This could cause spurious value errors to appear.
> ==6532== See README_MISSING_SYSCALL_OR_IOCTL for guidance on writing
> a proper wrapper.
> 2016-02-09 12:20:26.732+0000: 6535: info : libvirt version: 1.3.1
> 2016-02-09 12:20:26.732+0000: 6535: info : hostname: adm-office
> 2016-02-09 12:20:26.732+0000: 6535: warning : qemuDomainObjTaint:2223 :
> Domain id=1 name='gentoo-intel'
> uuid=f9fd934b-cbda-af4e-cc98-0dd2c8dd6c2c is tainted: host-cpu
> 2016-02-09 12:21:29.924+0000: 6532: error : qemuMonitorIO:689 : internal
> error: End of file from monitor
> ==6532==
> ==6532== HEAP SUMMARY:
> ==6532== in use at exit: 3,726,573 bytes in 15,324 blocks
> ==6532== total heap usage: 238,573 allocs, 223,249 frees,
> 1,020,776,752 bytes allocated
>
> (...)
>
> ==6532== LEAK SUMMARY:
> ==6532== definitely lost: 19,760 bytes in 97 blocks
> ==6532== indirectly lost: 21,098 bytes in 122 blocks
> ==6532== possibly lost: 2,698,764 bytes in 67 blocks
> ==6532== still reachable: 986,951 bytes in 15,038 blocks
> ==6532== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
> ==6532==
> ==6532== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
> ==6532== ERROR SUMMARY: 96 errors from 96 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
>
> full log:
> http://195.191.233.1/libvirt-gfapi.log
> http://195.191.233.1/libvirt-gfapi.log.bz2
>
I still think these are libgfapi leaks; All the definitely lost bytes come from the
library.
==6532== 3,064 (96 direct, 2,968 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss
record 1,106 of 1,142
==6532== at 0x4C2C0D0: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:711)
==6532== by 0x10701279: __gf_calloc (mem-pool.c:117)
==6532== by 0x106CC541: xlator_dynload (xlator.c:259)
==6532== by 0xFC4E947: create_master (glfs.c:202)
==6532== by 0xFC4E947: glfs_init_common (glfs.c:863)
==6532== by 0xFC4EB50: glfs_init@(a)GFAPI_3.4.0 (glfs.c:916)
==6532== by 0xF7E4A33: virStorageFileBackendGlusterInit
(storage_backend_gluster.c:625)
==6532== by 0xF7D56DE: virStorageFileInitAs (storage_driver.c:2788)
==6532== by 0xF7D5E39: virStorageFileGetMetadataRecurse (storage_driver.c:3048)
==6532== by 0xF7D6295: virStorageFileGetMetadata (storage_driver.c:3171)
==6532== by 0x1126A2B0: qemuDomainDetermineDiskChain (qemu_domain.c:3179)
==6532== by 0x11269AE6: qemuDomainCheckDiskPresence (qemu_domain.c:2998)
==6532== by 0x11292055: qemuProcessLaunch (qemu_process.c:4708)
Care to reporting it to them?
Of course - i will.
But, are You sure there is no need to call glfs_fini() after qemu
process is launched? Are all of those resources still needed in libvirt?
I understand, that libvirt needs to check presence / other-things of
storage, but after qemu is launched?
Just trying to understand...
Best regards
Piotr Rybicki