Using synchronous version of the API (zoo_multi).
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Marshall McMullen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've done massive leak detection against this code with tcmalloc's debug
> library and not seen a memory leak. And we used Multi ops almost
> Perhaps valgrind is doing a better job of finding the leak than tcmalloc.
> Are you using the synchronous or asynchronous version of multi?
> e.g. zoo_multi or zoo_amulti ?
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Deepak Jagtap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hi,
> > I am using zookeeper-3.4.4 and frequently using multiupdate operations.
> > While running valgrind it returned following output:
> > ==4056== 2,240 (160 direct, 2,080 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are
> > definitely lost in loss record 18 of 24
> > ==4056== at 0x4A04A28: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:467)
> > ==4056== by 0x504D822: create_completion_entry (zookeeper.c:2322)
> > ==4056== by 0x5052833: zoo_amulti (zookeeper.c:3141)
> > ==4056== by 0x5052A8B: zoo_multi (zookeeper.c:3240)
> > Just curious do I need explicitly need to handle this cleanup, by
> > invoking some API or is this a memory leak?
> > It looks like completion entries for individual operations in
> > multiupdate transaction are not getting freed. The memory leak size
> > depends on the number of operations in single mutlipupdate
> > transaction.
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Deepak