Deepak Jagtap 2012-10-12, 19:59
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]>wrote:
> 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
> Thanks & Regards,
Deepak Jagtap 2012-10-13, 00:19
Michi Mutsuzaki 2012-10-12, 20:01
Deepak Jagtap 2012-10-13, 01:06
Ted Dunning 2012-10-13, 01:38