pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates: pmdaproc, cgroups, books

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp updates: pmdaproc, cgroups, books
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:36:01 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150109145501.GA30696@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1309338393.770280.1416292315684.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20141212061823.GC14953@xxxxxxxxxx> <53646500.16198226.1418365398316.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20141212164033.GD14953@xxxxxxxxxx> <1544484578.17657959.1418625363923.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20141219162030.GC11308@xxxxxxxxxx> <2021314232.5965692.1420757204464.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150109145501.GA30696@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: U/nM5fXqtboa8z4w8VK1PfQ6A9kY4A==
Thread-topic: pcp updates: pmdaproc, cgroups, books

----- Original Message -----
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > [...]  Either I'm missing something, or you're missing what is
> > happening in proc_refresh - it doesn't matter how many PMIDs get
> > thrown at a single fetch, it will refresh each cluster only once per
> > fetch...  so it has to be the fetch batching that triggers the leak,
> > right?
> 
> Did you run the test I posted?  I included results (taken before and
> after the fd-leak patch) that speak for themselves, and don't rely on
> speculation about what internal behaviors should have or not have
> triggered the bug.

There was no question about the end result (the problem is how the end
point was reached), and no speculation on my part.

Let me know when a new version of the change incorporating the review
comments is available, otherwise I can take those on when I'm back in
the office.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>