1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
|
[[!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
|
