[#19731] use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but...should there be

56 messages 2008/11/08
[#19796] Re: use of require thread safety — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#21651] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2009/01/29

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19798] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

> While a thread is requiring a given file, another thread which

[#20732] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/20

> Currently with 1.8.7 (for me) the secondmost thread continues

[#20737] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/20

Roger Pack wrote:

[#20769] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/21

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#20795] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/12/22

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:05:07AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19821] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/11

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:51:45AM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19829] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19759] Proposal: Method#get_args — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...>

I'd like to propose a way to introspect into the arguments of a method

97 messages 2008/11/09
[#19787] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

The only question I have is why would one want to know the names of

[#19789] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Trans <transfire@...> 2008/11/11

On Nov 10, 7:18=A0pm, "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19818] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Mikael Hlund <mikael@...> 2008/11/11

Allow me to throw in my ~.116892074 DKK;

[#19837] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Mikael H淡ilund wrote:

[#19838] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/11

[#19870] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:48:03AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#19874] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:01:40PM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:

[#19881] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19887] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19889] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19892] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19893] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Deville <jdeville@...> 2008/11/12

> -----Original Message-----

[#19894] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:33:07AM +0900, Jim Deville wrote:

[#19895] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19896] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19899] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19915] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/13

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:02:25AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19927] Re: {Proc,Method}#parameters (Re: Proposal: Method#get_args) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/14

Hi,

[#19784] Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>

Hi.

22 messages 2008/11/10
[#19799] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Narihiro Nakamura" <authornari@...> 2008/11/11

Hi.

[#19812] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...> 2008/11/11

Narihiro,

[#19823] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#19845] [Bug #743] Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #743: Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values

11 messages 2008/11/11

[#19846] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #744: memory leak in callcc?

142 messages 2008/11/11
[#21394] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2009/01/17

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#21429] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/19

[#21441] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21483] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/21

[#21487] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/01/21

On Wednesday 21 of January 2009 10:21:19 Brent Roman wrote:

[#21711] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/02/01

[#22062] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/02/14

>> I've tried that myself but it didn't work very well

[#22265] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/02/19

On Saturday 14 of February 2009 08:17:22 Roger Pack wrote:

[#21514] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/22

[#19945] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2008/11/15

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#19968] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19969] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/11/17

At 12:54 08/11/17, Brent Roman wrote:

[#19970] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19972] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Kurt Stephens <kurt@...> 2008/11/17

A common technique is to allocate a reasonably sized array (256-bytes)

[#20149] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/28

[#20517] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/13

> I implemented a scheme for recording the maximum depth of the C stack in

[#20534] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/13

[#20750] [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20751] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/12/21

[#20752] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20781] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/22

First thanks for doing all that hard work. I'm sure it's not pleasant

[#20783] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/22

[#20903] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/26

Seems to overall be a tidge slower for "micro" stuff--5 or 10%.

[#20914] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/27

[#20922] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/27

> You ran this benchmark suite, correct?

[#20931] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/28

[#20995] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/30

Hmm interesting.

[#21261] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Stephen Sykes" <sdsykes@...> 2009/01/11

Brent,

[#20168] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/30

Hi,

[#20175] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/30

The problem can be demonstrated with a very simple program (attached), and

[#20178] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/30

[#20185] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/12/01

> What I did come up with was not ugly at all. Factor the unwieldy switch

[#19938] Fibers in 1.8 — "Aman Gupta" <rubytalk@...1.net>

Are there any plans to backport Fiber to ruby 1.8?

13 messages 2008/11/15

[#20008] [Bug #766] 'Not enough space' error on windows — Ittay Dror <redmine@...>

Bug #766: 'Not enough space' error on windows

17 messages 2008/11/20

[#20092] [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francois Proulx <redmine@...>

Bug #797: bug or feature: local method ?

23 messages 2008/11/25
[#20097] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20098] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/25

[#20100] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20127] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francoys <francois.pr@...> 2008/11/26

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[ruby-core:19913] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc?

From: Brent Roman <brent@...>
Date: 2008-11-13 08:33:05 UTC
List: ruby-core #19913
Roger,

This "leak" appears to be an artifact of MRI's conservative garbage
collector.
Depending upon the compiler options and the target CPU, there may be
unused references to these continuation objects left on the thread's stack
when
it is copied in whole to by the callcc method.

In your example, these unused references form a linked list of continuations
across the loop iterations.  When the GC tries to mark such a recursive
structure, it
consumes a lot of stack space.  With Ruby 1.68, this leads to a segmentation
fault when the stack size exceeds the max allowed (see ulimit -s)
With later versions of Ruby, the mark phase of the GC will "give up"
when the stack grows too large.  This avoids the segfault, as GC silently
stops working instead.  At least that's what I think I see in v1.8.7 p72

When I built x86 Ruby using gcc without optimization  (CFLAGS=-g),
even this caused a memory leak:

  loop { callcc {|c| c}}

However, when I rebuilt it with CFLAGS=-O2, the memory leak only appeared
when the continuations returned by callcc where assigned to a variable.

When compiled for the ARM9 with gcc CFLAGS=-Os or CFLAGS=-O2, everything
works as
it should.  No leaks observed.  However, when I changed to CFLAGS=-g or
CFLAGS=-O3,
the original example leaks badly.  These tests were performed using x86 gcc
v3.3.5 and
ARM gcc v3.4.5. 

Can anyone suggest debugging techniques to help determine what is leaving
the dangling
references to these continuations on Ruby's 'C' call stack? 

If we knew what wrote these, we might be able to explicitly clear them once
they go out of scope.  This should result in better significantly GC
performance all around.

- brent


Brent Roman wrote:
> 
> Roger,
> 
> I've run into a number of issues related to Continuations and MRI's
> garbage collector,
> so I thought I'd have a look at this one.  I investigated the equivalent
> (non-generator)
> example described at:
> 
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=7896&group_id=426
> 
> This:
> 
>    loop {@x = callcc {|c| c}}
> 
> quickly consumes all of memory.
> 
> One of my x86 Linux machines crashed after a couple minutes of running
> this
> loop with a Segmentation Fault.  My guess here is that the stack, which
> during
> GC is unchecked,  got too deep.
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Pack-5 wrote:
>> 
>> Bug #744: memory leak in callcc?
>> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/744
>> 
>> Author: Roger Pack
>> Status: Open, Priority: Normal
>> 
>> from
>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=7896&group_id=426
>> this code
>> require 'generator'
>> loop {  g = Generator.new {|x| (1..3).each {|i| x.yield i}} }
>> 
>> seems to leak for me--I'm not sure if this is expected or not.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------
>> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-ruby-core%3A19846---Bug--744--memory-leak-in-callcc--tp20447794p20476661.html
Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


In This Thread