On 02/16/2010 11:37 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Dietmar Rieder wrote:
> >
> >> Regardless, if switching to libumem solves problems, there is surely a
> >> bug somewhere. Libumem supports some built in debugging features
> >> which might help to discover the location of the problem.
> >
> > ...I suspected that, but unfortunately I do not have the skills nor
> > resources for debugging this problem, but hopefully there is someone out
> > there who does...
>
> Consult 'man umem_debug'. This documents a UMEM_DEBUG environment
> variable and some other features which can be used to enable debugging
> and reporting of issues.
>
> It seems that
>
> UMEM_DEBUG=default
>
> is useful. With this enabled, the software may run a bit slower, but
> it should report any issues. Allocated data is non-zero so if the
> software somehow depended on this, then the problem should soon become
> evident.
Hi, thanks for the hint, I tried to use umem debugging and here is what
I get:
gcore 25869
mdb core.25869
> ::findleaks -dvf
findleaks: maximum buffers => 871328
findleaks: actual buffers => 870422
findleaks:
findleaks: potential pointers => 8295213
findleaks: dismissals => 2109500 (25.4%)
findleaks: misses => 4738170 (57.1%)
findleaks: dups => 578557 ( 6.9%)
findleaks: follows => 868986 (10.4%)
findleaks:
findleaks: elapsed wall time => 5 seconds
findleaks:
CACHE LEAKED BUFCTL CALLER
080ee710 1436 09f79648 libresolv.so.2`__res_vinit+0x118
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1436 buffers, 1286656 bytes
umem_alloc_896 leak: 1436 buffers, 896 bytes each, 1286656 bytes total
ADDR BUFADDR TIMESTAMP THREAD
CACHE LASTLOG CONTENTS
9f79648 9f7ab80 2dcdb5b1a541 12
80ee710 80ceed8 0
libumem.so.1`umem_cache_alloc_debug+0x16c
libumem.so.1`umem_cache_alloc+0x15c
libumem.so.1`umem_alloc+0x3f
libumem.so.1`malloc+0x23
libresolv.so.2`__res_vinit+0x118
libresolv.so.2`res_ninit+0x1a
dnsrbl_check_source+0x14a
acl_filter+0x281
real_envrcpt+0x201
mlfi_envrcpt+0x19
st_rcpt+0x66
mi_engine+0x2b5
mi_handle_session+0x36
mi_thread_handle_wrapper+0xe
libc.so.1`_thr_setup+0x4e
Unfortunately I'm no C programmer so I'm not sure what all of this
means, it seems to be something with lirbresolve.so.2...
DidiMessage
Re: [milter-greylist] memory consumption
2010-02-18 by Dietmar Rieder
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.