| To: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pmmgr memory hog |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:43:42 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20150205232342.GB28568@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <23273355.372.1423022546978.JavaMail.rmckee@wsrmckee> <1838902881.6952157.1423024805273.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0md25p63ji.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1683339037.8571387.1423176489834.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150205225822.GA28568@xxxxxxxxxx> <1790828395.8575235.1423177464966.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150205232342.GB28568@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | fDyaL8lhG7O4/7HEf90gp4AEetAOHw== |
| Thread-topic: | pmmgr memory hog |
----- Original Message ----- > Inserting a "valgrind" into qa/666:75 generates all-clean results. > The larger memory consumption comes in when scanning network with the > probe/avahi discoveries, Is that enabled by default though? I'd expect not (esp. the network scanning... right?), in which case that wont be the root cause here. > I've run valgrind on pmmgr in the past > [...snip testing-by-hand notes...] > Am rerunning now. A permanent QA test helps beyond just the immediate concern, of course; for the next person hacking on pmmgr & accidentally introducing a leak, so please do give it some thought. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Frank Ch. Eigler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: pmmgr memory hog, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |