[#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:20179] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use

From: Brent Roman <brent@...>
Date: 2008-11-30 19:34:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #20179
Roger,

I already responded in detail to this bug:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=7896&group_id=426

I just bang on Ruby 1.6.8 for our robotics application.

You seem to already be doing a lot of excellent Ruby testing with current
versions.
If I spent a couple days developing these two patches for Ruby 1.8.7, 
would you be willing to run
regression tests against them and to report the results here?

I think the small stack clearing patch should improve the GC behavior,
but, by itself, it will likely slow down some apps due to its having
to clear large areas of stack.  I'd expect to see that
slow down mitigated by the larger patch that would refactor rb_eval()
and thereby keep the stack smaller.

The combined patches will likely be large, so I'll just post links to them
here.

Would anyone else be willing to test them? ...
Particularly those who have large apps, and/or apps that use multiple
threads or
continuations that seem to leak memory?

- brent

P.S.  I use gcc 3.4.5 for generating code for our embedded ARM targets.
The older compiler generates fewer stack temporaries than the newer ones.
Don't rush to update :-)

P.P.S.  The way GC is currently invoked causes it to occur when that stack
is already near its maximum depth.  This patch tries to make GC normally
occur is part of CHECK_INTS, when the stack tends to be shallower.
At that point, clearing the stack can be much more effective.



Roger Pack wrote:
> 
> 
> Wow thanks for doing that. I'd say please create a redmine bug for it
> [or attach it to an existing].  A patch to 1.8.7 would be sweet :)
> A patch for 1.9 would be great too :)
> 
> I'd imagine that your system is "better" than just blindly doing a
> garbage_collect()
> {
> clear_stack();
> ....do normal gc
> }
> void clear_stack()
> {
>   a = char[10000];
>   memclear(a);
> }
> ?
> 
> Thanks!
> -=R
> Note that I use gcc 3.4.5 I assume that won't be a problem though.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-ruby-core%3A19846---Bug--744--memory-leak-in-callcc--tp20447794p20761320.html
Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


In This Thread