[Ace-users] [tao-users] memory leak with thread-per-connection model
Friedhelm Wolf
fwolf at dre.vanderbilt.edu
Wed Nov 7 10:46:25 CST 2007
Hi Johnny,
I don't know, whether I understood you correctly, but here is what I did
to get more information: I ran my application with one, two and three
open connections. The valgrind results are interesting:
One connection:
==17289== LEAK SUMMARY:
==17289== definitely lost: 185 bytes in 3 blocks.
==17289== possibly lost: 72 bytes in 1 blocks.
==17289== still reachable: 149 bytes in 7 blocks.
==17289== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
Two connections:
==17508== LEAK SUMMARY:
==17508== definitely lost: 185 bytes in 3 blocks.
==17508== possibly lost: 144 bytes in 2 blocks.
==17508== still reachable: 149 bytes in 7 blocks.
==17508== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
Three connections:
==17601== LEAK SUMMARY:
==17601== definitely lost: 185 bytes in 3 blocks.
==17601== possibly lost: 216 bytes in 3 blocks.
==17601== still reachable: 149 bytes in 7 blocks.
==17601== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
While the "definitely lost" parts (which are definitely memory leaks)
stay the same, there seems to be a "possibly lost" portion of 72 bytes
for each new thread.
According to valgrind this happens in:
==17601== 216 bytes in 3 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 10 of 10
==17601== at 0x1B907F75: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:175)
==17601== by 0x1B8F2188: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==17601== by 0x1B8F224B: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==17601== by 0x1BD47681: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (in
/lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.6.so)
==17601== by 0x1BCA0ACA: ACE_OS::thr_create(void* (*)(void*), void*,
long, unsigned long*, unsigned long*, long, void*, unsigned,
ACE_Base_Thread_Adapter*) (OS_NS_Thread.cpp:4267)
==17601== by 0x1BCD3890: ACE_Thread_Manager::spawn_i(void*
(*)(void*), void*, long, unsigned long*, unsigned long*, long, int,
void*, unsigned, ACE_Task_Base*) (Thread.inl:97)
==17601== by 0x1BCD717F: ACE_Thread_Manager::spawn_n(unsigned, void*
(*)(void*), void*, long, long, int, ACE_Task_Base*, unsigned long*,
void**, unsigned*) (Thread_Manager.cpp:734)
==17601== by 0x1BCD10E5: ACE_Task_Base::activate(long, int, int,
long, int, ACE_Task_Base*, unsigned long*, void**, unsigned*, unsigned
long*) (Task.cpp:174)
==17601== by 0x1BB79862:
TAO_Thread_Per_Connection_Handler::activate(long, int, int, long, int,
ACE_Task_Base*, unsigned long*, void**, unsigned*, unsigned long*)
(Thread_Per_Connection_Handler.cpp:60)
==17601== by 0x1BB10B83:
TAO_Concurrency_Strategy<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler>::activate_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*,
void*) (Acceptor_Impl.cpp:122)
==17601== by 0x1BB0EF6D:
ACE_Strategy_Acceptor<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
ACE_SOCK_Acceptor>::activate_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*)
(Acceptor.cpp:779)
==17601== by 0x1BB0FB1E: ACE_Acceptor<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
ACE_SOCK_Acceptor>::handle_input(int) (Acceptor.cpp:406)
I hope this helps.
Thanks,
Friedhelm
Johnny Willemsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We do have some leaks at exit, the most important thing to check is
> that whether you have leaks per thread. Assuming your test proram has
> created X threads I would expect to have X blocks lost at the moment
> we still have a leak per thread. I only see some leaks which seem to
> are not related to a thread, some are related to the ORB.
>
> Johnny
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Friedhelm Wolf
>> [mailto:fwolf at dre.vanderbilt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007
>> 10:35 PM To: Johnny Willemsen Cc: tao-users at cse.wustl.edu Subject:
>> Re: [tao-users] memory leak with thread-per-connection model
>>
>> Hi Johnny,
>>
>> after updating to the current svn status (11/6/07), I get
>> different, but not better valgrind results, as you can see from the
>> attached log:
>>
>> ==31988== 1 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1
>> of 10 ==31988== at 0x1B9077FB: operator new(unsigned,
>> std::nothrow_t const&) (vg_replace_malloc.c:135) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BC7FD2F: ACE_TSS<ACE_Dynamic>::make_TSS_TYPE() const
>> (TSS_T.cpp:60) ==31988== by 0x1BC8007B:
>> ACE_TSS<ACE_Dynamic>::ts_get() const (TSS_T.cpp:219) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BC80222: ACE_TSS_Singleton<ACE_Dynamic,
>> ACE_Null_Mutex>::instance() (TSS_T.cpp:53) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BC7FCB6: ACE_Dynamic::instance() (Dynamic.cpp:26) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BB15A74:
>> TAO_Connect_Creation_Strategy<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler>::ma
>> ke_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*&) (Svc_Handler.cpp:72)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB1429A:
>> ACE_Strategy_Connector<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
>> ACE_SOCK_Connector>::make_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*&)
>> (Connector.cpp:895) ==31988== by 0x1BB15138:
>> ACE_Connector<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
>> ACE_SOCK_Connector>::connect_i(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*&,
>> TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler**, ACE_INET_Addr const&,
>> ACE_Synch_Options const&, ACE_INET_Addr const&, int, int, int)
>> (Connector.cpp:369) ==31988== by 0x1BB12EBA:
>> TAO_IIOP_Connector::begin_connection(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*&,
>> TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*, TAO_IIOP_Endpoint*,
>> ACE_Time_Value*) (Connector.cpp:328) ==31988== by 0x1BB13C0E:
>> TAO_IIOP_Connector::make_connection(TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*,
>> TAO_Transport_Descriptor_Interface&, ACE_Time_Value*)
>> (IIOP_Connector.cpp:195) ==31988== by 0x1BB833F0:
>> TAO_Connector::connect(TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*,
>> TAO_Transport_Descriptor_Interface*, ACE_Time_Value*)
>> (Transport_Connector.cpp:375) ==31988== by 0x1BB578F0:
>> TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver::try_connect_i(TAO_Transport_D
>> escriptor_Interface*, ACE_Time_Value*, bool)
>> (Profile_Transport_Resolver.cpp:171) ==31988== ==31988== ==31988==
>> 36 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 10
>> ==31988== at 0x1B9077FB: operator new(unsigned, std::nothrow_t
>> const&) (vg_replace_malloc.c:135) ==31988== by 0x1BB48F7F:
>> ACE_TSS<TAO_ORB_Core_TSS_Resources>::make_TSS_TYPE() const
>> (TSS_T.cpp:60) ==31988== by 0x1BB26CFB:
>> ACE_TSS<TAO_ORB_Core_TSS_Resources>::ts_get() const (TSS_T.cpp:219)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB25C38:
>> TAO_Leader_Follower::set_client_thread() (TSS_T.cpp:53) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BB25DD6: TAO_Leader_Follower::wait_for_event(TAO_LF_Event*,
>> TAO_Transport*, ACE_Time_Value*) (Leader_Follower.inl:205)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB271D0:
>> TAO_LF_Connect_Strategy::wait_i(TAO_LF_Event*, TAO_Transport*,
>> ACE_Time_Value*) (LF_Connect_Strategy.cpp:54) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BAF05FE: TAO_Connect_Strategy::wait(TAO_Transport*,
>> ACE_Time_Value*) (Connect_Strategy.cpp:41) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BB82693:
>> TAO_Connector::wait_for_connection_completion(TAO::Profile_Tra
>> nsport_Resolver*, TAO_Transport*&, ACE_Time_Value*)
>> (Transport_Connector.cpp:528) ==31988== by 0x1BB13533:
>> TAO_IIOP_Connector::complete_connection(int,
>> TAO_Transport_Descriptor_Interface&,
>> TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler**&, TAO_IIOP_Endpoint**, unsigned,
>> TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*, TAO_LF_Multi_Event*,
>> ACE_Time_Value*) (IIOP_Connector.cpp:418) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BB13C80:
>> TAO_IIOP_Connector::make_connection(TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*,
>> TAO_Transport_Descriptor_Interface&, ACE_Time_Value*)
>> (IIOP_Connector.cpp:225) ==31988== by 0x1BB833F0:
>> TAO_Connector::connect(TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver*,
>> TAO_Transport_Descriptor_Interface*, ACE_Time_Value*)
>> (Transport_Connector.cpp:375) ==31988== by 0x1BB578F0:
>> TAO::Profile_Transport_Resolver::try_connect_i(TAO_Transport_D
>> escriptor_Interface*, ACE_Time_Value*, bool)
>> (Profile_Transport_Resolver.cpp:171) ==31988== ==31988== ==31988==
>> 72 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 9 of 10
>> ==31988== at 0x1B907F75: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:175)
>> ==31988== by 0x1B8F2188: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so) ==31988==
>> by 0x1B8F224B: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BD47681: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (in
>> /lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.6.so) ==31988== by 0x1BCA0ACA:
>> ACE_OS::thr_create(void* (*)(void*), void*, long, unsigned long*,
>> unsigned long*, long, void*, unsigned, ACE_Base_Thread_Adapter*)
>> (OS_NS_Thread.cpp:4267) ==31988== by 0x1BCD3890:
>> ACE_Thread_Manager::spawn_i(void* (*)(void*), void*, long, unsigned
>> long*, unsigned long*, long, int, void*, unsigned, ACE_Task_Base*)
>> (Thread.inl:97) ==31988== by 0x1BCD717F:
>> ACE_Thread_Manager::spawn_n(unsigned, void* (*)(void*), void*,
>> long, long, int, ACE_Task_Base*, unsigned long*, void**, unsigned*)
>> (Thread_Manager.cpp:734) ==31988== by 0x1BCD10E5:
>> ACE_Task_Base::activate(long, int, int, long, int, ACE_Task_Base*,
>> unsigned long*, void**, unsigned*, unsigned long*) (Task.cpp:174)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB79862:
>> TAO_Thread_Per_Connection_Handler::activate(long, int, int, long,
>> int, ACE_Task_Base*, unsigned long*, void**, unsigned*, unsigned
>> long*) (Thread_Per_Connection_Handler.cpp:60) ==31988== by
>> 0x1BB10B83:
>> TAO_Concurrency_Strategy<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler>::activat
>> e_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler*, void*)
>> (Acceptor_Impl.cpp:122) ==31988== by 0x1BB0EF6D:
>> ACE_Strategy_Acceptor<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
>> ACE_SOCK_Acceptor>::activate_svc_handler(TAO_IIOP_Connection_H
>> andler*) (Acceptor.cpp:779) ==31988== by 0x1BB0FB1E:
>> ACE_Acceptor<TAO_IIOP_Connection_Handler,
>> ACE_SOCK_Acceptor>::handle_input(int) (Acceptor.cpp:406) ==31988==
>> ==31988== ==31988== 148 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in
>> loss record 10 of 10 ==31988== at 0x1B9077FB: operator
>> new(unsigned, std::nothrow_t const&) (vg_replace_malloc.c:135)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB8432F:
>> ACE_TSS<TAO_TSS_Resources>::make_TSS_TYPE() const (TSS_T.cpp:60)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB8447B: ACE_TSS<TAO_TSS_Resources>::ts_get()
>> const (TSS_T.cpp:219) ==31988== by 0x1BB84622:
>> TAO_TSS_Singleton<TAO_TSS_Resources, ACE_Thread_Mutex>::instance()
>> (TSS_T.cpp:53) ==31988== by 0x1BB840A6:
>> TAO_TSS_Resources::instance() (TSS_Resources.cpp:44) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BB3D526: TAO_ORB_Core::gui_resource_factory()
>> (ORB_Core.cpp:1508) ==31988== by 0x1BB25D10:
>> TAO_Leader_Follower::reactor() (Leader_Follower.cpp:135) ==31988==
>> by 0x1BB3DDF4: TAO_ORB_Core::reactor() (ORB_Core.cpp:2826)
>> ==31988== by 0x1BB47E10: TAO_ORB_Core::init(int&, char**)
>> (ORB_Core.cpp:1144) ==31988== by 0x1BB3AF72:
>> CORBA::ORB_init(int&, char**, char const*) (ORB.cpp:1350) ==31988==
>> by 0x805EB68: main (lpgame_server.cpp:22) ==31988== ==31988== LEAK
>> SUMMARY: ==31988== definitely lost: 185 bytes in 3 blocks.
>> ==31988== possibly lost: 72 bytes in 1 blocks. ==31988==
>> still reachable: 149 bytes in 7 blocks. ==31988==
>> suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==31988== Reachable blocks (those
>> to which a pointer was found) are not shown. ==31988== To see them,
>> rerun with: --show-reachable=yes
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Friedhelm
>>
>> Johnny Willemsen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What is the exact svn number that you are using. This
>> should be fixed on the
>>> head version of today, see bugzilla 3108. This memory leak
>> does exist in TAO
>>> 1.6.1 and 1.6.0.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Johnny Willemsen Remedy IT Postbus 101 2650 AC Berkel en
>>> Rodenrijs The Netherlands www.theaceorb.nl / www.remedy.nl
>>>
>>> *** Integrated compile and test statistics see
>>> http://scoreboard.theaceorb.nl *** *** Commercial service and
>>> support for ACE/TAO/CIAO *** *** See
>>> http://www.theaceorb.nl/en/support.html ***
>>>
>>>> TAO VERSION : svn head ACE VERSION : svn head
>>>>
>>>> HOST/TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: Linux
>>>> tango.dre.vanderbilt.edu 2.6.10 #1 SMP Sat Jan 1 17:55:41 CST
>>>> 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
>>>>
>>>> COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
>>>> 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)
>>>>
>>>> CONTENTS OF $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h #include
>>>> <ace/config-linux.h>
>>>>
>>>> CONTENTS OF $ACE_ROOT/include/makeinclude/platform_macros.GNU
>>>> include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_linux.GNU
>>>>
>>>> CONTENTS OF
>>>> $ACE_ROOT/bin/MakeProjectCreator/config/default.features: n/a
>>>>
>>>> LEVEL OF URGENCY (LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH): LOW
>>>>
>>>> AREA/CLASS/EXAMPLE AFFECTED: thread-per-connection model
>>>>
>>>> DOES THE PROBLEM AFFECT: execution / memory management
>>>>
>>>> SYNOPSIS: memory leak with thread-per-connection model
>>>>
>>>> DESCRIPTION:
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> I implemented a standard CORBA application, consisting of a
>>>> client and a server. When I check the server with valgrind in
>>>> the default configuration there is no memory leak. As soon as I
>>>> add a svc.conf file with the following content:
>>>>
>>>> static Server_Strategy_Factory "-ORBConcurrency
>> thread-per-connection"
>>>> valgrind indicates, that there are memory leaks. (see
>> attached file)
>>>> Is this a bug in TAO?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Friedhelm
>>>>
More information about the Ace-users
mailing list