Re: Memory management question

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Michael T. Jones (mtj++at++babar.asd.sgi.com)
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 18:20:59 -0700


On Apr 19, 4:26pm, Stephen_Gifford++at++MAPS.CS.CMU.EDU wrote:
> Subject: Re: Memory management question

> The pfMultiprocess mode has been PFMP_APPCULLDRAW (0) through
> all of these attempts. Since we're not actually drawing the geometry,
> only using pf functions to manipulate it, pfDraw is never being
> called. The program is simply running out of shared memory after
> growing larger and larger in a linear fashion.

Have you tried libdmalloc as a diagnostic approach?

> This looks to me like a core leak of some kind. I'm curious
> if anyone else has had success with similar work: processing 200+MB
> of data in a piece by piece fashion (iterating over a rectangular grid
> of load modules read in from disk, for example). In particular,
> anything where a Performer related core leak would cause a real
> problem.

We don't have known memory leaks, so there is no quick answer of the
"just get patch nnn and it will be ok" type. We have done extensive
testing and feel that this should not be a leakage situation from in
the Performer libraries themselves.

Have you examined the loaders that you use for possible memory leaks?
If nothing else, run in single process mode, make wrappers for the
allocation functions and print out info about each allocation and
free with a running total. Just about everyone has some version of
this approach in their toolbox and it should help you narrow down
the search for the leaky spot if there is such. It may just be that
your memory is ref()'ed and this not subject to deletion.

Michael Jones

-- 

Be seeing you, Phone:415.933.1455 Fax:415.965.2658 M/S:8U-590 Michael T. Jones Silicon Graphics, Advanced Systems Division mtj++at++sgi.com 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mtn. View, CA 94039-7311 "Du musst Amboss oder Hammer sein" -- Goethe


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:52:45 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.