Probably this patch is proper. I'll test it today-tomorrow. Thanks. Dmitry.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Vergoz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:33 PM > To: Andi Gutmans; 'Dmitry Stogov'; 'PHPdev' > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking memory patch > > > Here is a small patch allowing to correct the small leak. > This one will have > to be merge with that of Michael - (its patch is correct and does not > contain any leak (I were not clear in my last mail) - thus +1) > > http://badcode.be/~descript/PHP/PHP_5_2-php-main.diff > > Michael Vergoz > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Vergoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Dmitry Stogov'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "'PHPdev'" <internals@lists.php.net> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:29 PM > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking memory patch > > > > Salut Andi & Dmitry, > > > > If you have errors in your script you have a leak in > > PG(last_error_message) & PG(last_error_file) because of > php_error_cb() > > which allocates via strdup() these two variables. It should > be noted also > > that these variables are not given with NULL after their freed in > > php_error_cb() - main/main.c +679 and that both last > allowance will never > > be freed for each thread. > > They are freed with the stop of the process via > php_module_shutdown(). > > > > I propose to free these buffer in php_request_shutdown()? > In fact the > > leak > > more are the small ones but they become repetitive in a > Threaded program. > > > > There is also another condition to generate large mem leak > for example > > by > > re-using a thread to carry out several script with the > continuation. There > > you explodes all the records if you do not do a > ts_free_thread() just > > after your php_request_shutdown(). It's for that which I > think that it > > would be very judicious to add a ts_free_thread() before > each the return() > > of the HttpExtensionProc() function of the ISAPI SAPI module. > > > > Michael Vergoz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Michael Vergoz'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Dmitry Stogov'" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'PHPdev'" <internals@lists.php.net> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:38 PM > > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking memory patch > > > > > >> Are you sure this isn't because the IIS thread is still > running? One > >> thread > >> handles multiple requests. > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Michael Vergoz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:33 AM > >>> To: Dmitry Stogov; 'Andi Gutmans'; PHPdev > >>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > memory patch > >>> > >>> In fact I had found some leaks it would seem that > >>> ts_free_thread() after > >>> php_request_shutdown() solves all the problem. > >>> I am checking if it's bad but if not the case the SAPI > ISAPI should > >>> have a small modification. > >>> > >>> mv- > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Dmitry Stogov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "'Michael Vergoz'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Andi Gutmans'" > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <internals@lists.php.net> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:54 PM > >>> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > memory patch > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi Michael, > >>> > > >>> > The patch was tested in ZTS mode too. > >>> > > >>> > What SAPI you are talking about? (I would like to reproduce > >>> the problem). > >>> > > >>> > Thanks. Dmitry. > >>> > > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Michael Vergoz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:22 PM > >>> >> To: Andi Gutmans; internals@lists.php.net > >>> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking memory > >>> >> patch > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Hi aAndy > >>> >> > >>> >> > We didn't find a material difference between malloc() and > >>> >> > mmap() though, most probably because malloc() at these sizes > >>> >> actually calls > >>> >> > mmap(). > >>> >> You can have good difference with the mremap() of > Linux because > >>> >> it directly changes the vector into memory without recopying > >>> >> these data. > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Before beginning a benchmark I would like to speak about a > >>> >> serious problem that I have with TSRM/MM. > >>> >> > >>> >> A S1 script carried out by thread T1 will use the same memory > >>> >> capacity as S2 script by T2 whereas theoretically > separation is > >>> >> obligatory. In addition to > >>> >> the problem of safety, that cause also a problem of > >>> >> management of the load > >>> >> memory of the process father. > >>> >> > >>> >> We define a father process P=while(1); > >>> >> > >>> >> When a process father starts it must initialize tsrm_startup(), > >>> >> sapi_startup() and php_module_startup(). At this time all the > >>> >> additional functions and objects are loaded and usable by all > >>> >> script (what is normal). > >>> >> > >>> >> With the creation of a thread one associates a TSRMLS to > >>> it. Then one > >>> >> carries out php_request_startup(), php_execute_script() and > >>> >> php_request_shutdown() to entirely enclose PHP/Zend. > >>> >> > >>> >> With the execution of Sx script in Tx: the variables dynamics, > >>> >> static and constant of this one will be stored in AG(head). > >>> >> > >>> >> The problem comes from there. It is impossible to destroy a > >>> >> memory which a script has just used because the process father > >>> >> continues to turn and nor > >>> >> php_request_shutdown(), php_module_shutdown(), > sapi_shutdown() and > >>> >> tsrm_shutdown() will not be carried out AND THUS there will > >>> >> be a mem leak > >>> >> > >>> >> I am very annoyed by this problem, it is necessary > that I find a > >>> >> possibility to destroy these buffer. > >>> >> > >>> >> Michael Vergoz > >>> >> > >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >> From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> >> To: "'Michael Vergoz'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >>> >> <internals@lists.php.net> > >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:26 AM > >>> >> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > memory patch > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Sorry I didn't make clear that only the malloc()/free() > >>> part works. > >>> >> > The > >>> >> > mmap() and Win32 Allocation code is commented. > >>> >> > We didn't find a material difference between malloc() and > >>> >> mmap() though, > >>> >> > most probably because malloc() at these sizes actually > >>> calls mmap(). > >>> >> > So really most important is for some ppl to run some > >>> >> benchmarks on this. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Thx. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Andi > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> >> From: Michael Vergoz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >> >> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 5:25 PM > >>> >> >> To: Andi Gutmans; internals@lists.php.net > >>> >> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > >>> memory patch > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Hi Andi, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I appreciated to see this code which I must still > >>> study. Already a > >>> >> >> small remark it is that the system call mremap() is not > >>> >> portable it > >>> >> >> is available only on Linux. Then the size of the segments > >>> >> must always > >>> >> >> "be paginated" - normally your code is good on this > level. I > >>> >> >> think that a concept of kernel-memory and > user-memory can be > >>> >> >> very interesting to study, especially in threads > environments > >>> >> >> - that I use. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I would continue to look at your code but now I will > >>> sleep (04:26 > >>> >> >> pm)! > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> mv- > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >> >> From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> >> >> To: "'Andi Gutmans'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >>> >> >> <internals@lists.php.net> > >>> >> >> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 5:57 PM > >>> >> >> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > >>> memory patch > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > No help??? Come on guys. I'm sure some of you can spare a > >>> >> >> few idle cycles > >>> >> >> > :) > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> >> >> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 8:38 PM > >>> >> >> >> To: internals@lists.php.net > >>> >> >> >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] FW: Help needed in benchmarking > >>> memory patch > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Sending 3rd time this time without the > attachment. You can > >>> >> >> >> get the diff at http://gutmans.org/alloc.zip > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> >> >> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:06 PM > >>> >> >> >> To: 'internals@lists.php.net' > >>> >> >> >> Subject: Help needed in benchmarking memory patch > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Hi all, > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Attached is a patch we've been working on to improve > >>> the memory > >>> >> >> >> management of PHP. This patch's main advantage is > >>> reducing the > >>> >> >> >> memory footprint of PHP, and therefore allowing > it to scale > >>> >> >> >> better. Although at low concurrencies the change > seems to > >>> >> >> >> be negligble, while testing at higher > concurrencies we saw > >>> >> >> >> significant improvement with this patch, mainly due to > >>> >> >> >> lower memory usage. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> We would very much appreciate if people here tested > >>> >> this patch and > >>> >> >> >> send in their results. It would help us understand if > >>> >> others are > >>> >> >> >> getting consistent results with ours, and also see > >>> >> whether there > >>> >> >> >> are any additional improvements we should make. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> This patch should apply cleanly to the PHP 5.2 CVS > >>> >> tree. There's > >>> >> >> >> not much tuning that needs to be done. It uses > >>> >> >> >> malloc() to allocate large memory blocks. You can > >>> >> control the size > >>> >> >> >> of these blocks by setting the ZEND_MM_SEG_SIZE > environment > >>> >> >> >> variable before starting Apache/PHP. You may use K > >>> or M to play > >>> >> >> >> around with the block size. The default we are using is > >>> >> >> >> 256KB which seems to be a good balance. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Any feedback would be appreciated! > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Andi > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> -- > >>> >> >> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To > >>> >> >> >> unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To > >>> >> >> > unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >>> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
