[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]

[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]

[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-11

    <braunr> the exec servers seems to leak a lot
    <braunr> server*
    <braunr> exec now uses 109M on darnassus
    <braunr> it really leaks a lot
    <pinotree> only 109mb? few months ago, exec on exodar was taking more than
      200mb after few days of uptime with builds done
    <braunr> i wonder how much it takes on the buildds


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-17

    <braunr> the exec leak is tricky
    <braunr> bddebian: btw, look at the TODO file in the hurd source code
    <braunr> bddebian: there is a not from thomas bushnell about that
    <braunr> "*** Handle dead name notifications on execserver ports. !
    <braunr> not sure it's still a todo item, but it might be worth checking
    <bddebian> braunr: diskfs_execboot_class = ports_create_class (0, 0);
      This is what would need to change right?  It should call some cleanup
      routine in the first argument?
    <bddebian> Would be ideal if it could just use deadboot() from exec.
    <braunr> bddebian: possible
    <braunr> bddebian: hum execboot, i'm not so sure
    <bddebian> Execboot is the exec task, no?
    <braunr> i don't know what execboot is
    <bddebian> It's from libdiskfs
    <braunr> but "diskfs_execboot_class" looks like a class of ports used at
      startup only
    <braunr> ah
    <braunr> then it's something run in the diskfs users ?
    <bddebian> yes
    <braunr> the leak is in exec
    <braunr> if clients misbehave, it shouldn't affect that server
    <bddebian> That's a different issue, this was about the TODO thing 
    <braunr> ah
    <braunr> i don't know
    <bddebian> Me either :)
    <bddebian> For the leak I'm still focusing on do-bunzip2 but I am baffled
      at my results..
    <braunr> ?
    <bddebian> Where my counters are zero if I always increment on different
      vars but wild freaking numbers if I increment on malloc and decrement on
      free