[LLVMdev] Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?

[Lang Hames]

Hi Arnaud,

Out of interest - what makes you suspect the vector cost changes, rather
than the matrix ones? Is the tool indicating a leak due to those lines?

The memory operations for the vector costs should be fairly
straightforward, but the matrix operations use a value-pool system behind
the scenes to reduce the PBQP allocator's memory overhead. The extra
complexity of that makes it a prime suspect for memory leaks.

Cheers,
Lang.


On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Arnaud,
>
> You're right: newCosts should be a copy of the node's costs, as it may be
> modified. When we call setNodeCost's, the PBQP::Vector's assignment
> operator should free the old costs, but I may have misimplemented that (or
> forgotten it entirely).
>
> Cheers,
> Lang.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <
> arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lang,
>>
>>
>>
>> In PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build, around line 360, we have code
>> looking like:
>>
>>
>>
>> …
>>
>> PBQP::Vector newCosts(g.getNodeCosts(node));
>>
>> addPhysRegCoalesce(newCosts, pregOpt, cBenefit);
>>
>> g.setNodeCosts(node, newCosts);
>>
>> …
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect the leak occurs around the setNodeCosts method, and I have
>> trouble understanding how it handles the case where the node already has
>> costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that:
>>
>> - we make of copy of the node’s costs (probably because someone else can
>> refer to it ?)
>>
>> - we modify the copy
>>
>> - we set the node’s new costs. But what is supposed to happen there,
>> especially in the CostAllocator part ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you shed some light there ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Arnaud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 10 September 2014 19:26
>> *To:* Arnaud De Grandmaison
>> *Subject:* Re: Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Arnaud!
>>
>>
>>
>> - Lang.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <
>> arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lang,
>>
>>
>>
>> For your information, the leak sanitizer found something when I committed
>> my patch:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4506/steps/check-llvm%20asan/logs/stdio
>>
>>
>>
>> I will try to have a look at it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Arnaud A. de Grandmaison
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140910/77b8afd7/attachment.html>