LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L Archives

QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L  May 2015

QSERV-L May 2015

Subject:

Re: Memory leak question

From:

Serge Monkewitz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

General discussion for qserv (LSST prototype baseline catalog)

Date:

Fri, 8 May 2015 17:43:56 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

> On May 8, 2015, at 4:30 PM, John Gates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Serge,
> 
> Disclaimer: It wouldn't surprise me if one of the possible paths still leaked resources. This code is complicated. The primary problem was the normal successful operations were leaking mysql connections, of which we don't have that many to leak. This needed to be fixed quickly because tests were breaking.

Sure - I’m not arguing with any of that! I’m just trying (and failing) to understand this code.

> I see your point, and will say that when I do a '^c' to cancel a request, it isn't leaking mysql connections. It does look like there's an issue with _finishStatus that bears a closer look.

Yes and I think Jacek observed the same thing. Which is why I think I must be missing something...

> I think an easier way would be to change
> 
> if (_finishStatus != ACTIVE) {
>            return;
> }
> 
> to:
> 
> if (_finishStatus != ACTIVE) {
>     if (_finishStatus == CANCELLED) {
>          _cleanup();
>    }
>    return;
> }
> 
> I see this as safe as either way we would want to get rid of those pointers at that point.

This doesn’t address the (potential?) issue with Finished() not getting called.

> Resetting the shared_ptr's at the point you do would cause the current object to be destroyed before calling Finished(true).

Are you sure? The way I see it, the current object (QueryRequest) gets deleted when cancelFunc is destructed, and cancelFunc is held by _requester, from which the cancellation must be invoked. So I think that the requester, cancelFunc, and hence QueryRequest are guaranteed to be alive while cancel() is executing.

However, I do think this issue might be there in other places. For example, _importStream calls _retryFunc, which loops back to to Executive::_queryDispatch, eventually calling registerCancel() on the requester. I think that could cause the CancelFunc holding on to the QueryReqest to be destroyed, which could delete the QueryRequest while _importStream is executing.

Cheers,
Serge

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
August 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use