On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > 07.09.2012 09:25, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> 06.09.2012 12:58, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> ... >>> lrmd seems not to clean up gio channels properly: >> >> I prefer to call g_io_channel_unref() right after g_io_add_watch_full() >> instead of doing so when deleting descriptor (g_source_remove() is >> enough there). So channel will be automatically freed after watch fd is >> removed from poll with g_source_remove(). If I need to replace watch >> flags, I call g_io_channel_ref()/g_io_channel_unref() around >> g_source_remove()/g_io_add_watch_full() pair. This would require some >> care and testing though. I have spent two days on this when writing my >> first non-blocking server based on glib and gio. This code now works >> like a charm with approach outlined above. > > Does it make some sense?
Yes, I just needed to read it a few times before it sunk in :) The interactions are pretty complex, before I commit anything I'd like to be able to verify the refcounts are correct... how do you find out the refcount for these glib objects? > > g_io_add_watch_full() refs channel, so after channel is created and its > fd is put to mainloop with g_io_add_watch_full, channel has 2 in > refcount. Thus, it is not freed after g_source_remove() is called once. > >> >>> >>> ==1734== 8,946 (8,520 direct, 426 indirect) bytes in 71 blocks are >>> definitely lost in loss record 147 of 152 >>> ==1734== at 0x4C26FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) >>> ==1734== by 0x71997D2: g_malloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x71C67F4: g_io_channel_unix_new (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E52470: mainloop_add_fd (mainloop.c:660) >>> ==1734== by 0x5067870: services_os_action_execute (services_linux.c:456) >>> ==1734== by 0x403AA6: lrmd_rsc_dispatch (lrmd.c:696) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E513C2: crm_trigger_dispatch (mainloop.c:105) >>> ==1734== by 0x7190F0D: g_main_context_dispatch (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194937: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194D54: g_main_loop_run (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x402427: main (main.c:302) >>> ==1734== >>> ==1734== 8,946 (8,520 direct, 426 indirect) bytes in 71 blocks are >>> definitely lost in loss record 148 of 152 >>> ==1734== at 0x4C26FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) >>> ==1734== by 0x71997D2: g_malloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x71C67F4: g_io_channel_unix_new (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E52470: mainloop_add_fd (mainloop.c:660) >>> ==1734== by 0x50678AE: services_os_action_execute (services_linux.c:465) >>> ==1734== by 0x403AA6: lrmd_rsc_dispatch (lrmd.c:696) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E513C2: crm_trigger_dispatch (mainloop.c:105) >>> ==1734== by 0x7190F0D: g_main_context_dispatch (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194937: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194D54: g_main_loop_run (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x402427: main (main.c:302) >>> ==1734== >>> ==1734== 65,394 (62,280 direct, 3,114 indirect) bytes in 519 blocks are >>> definitely lost in loss record 151 of 152 >>> ==1734== at 0x4C26FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) >>> ==1734== by 0x71997D2: g_malloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x71C67F4: g_io_channel_unix_new (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E52470: mainloop_add_fd (mainloop.c:660) >>> ==1734== by 0x5067870: services_os_action_execute (services_linux.c:456) >>> ==1734== by 0x50676B4: recurring_action_timer (services_linux.c:212) >>> ==1734== by 0x719161A: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7190F0D: g_main_context_dispatch (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194937: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194D54: g_main_loop_run (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x402427: main (main.c:302) >>> ==1734== >>> ==1734== 65,394 (62,280 direct, 3,114 indirect) bytes in 519 blocks are >>> definitely lost in loss record 152 of 152 >>> ==1734== at 0x4C26FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) >>> ==1734== by 0x71997D2: g_malloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x71C67F4: g_io_channel_unix_new (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x4E52470: mainloop_add_fd (mainloop.c:660) >>> ==1734== by 0x50678AE: services_os_action_execute (services_linux.c:465) >>> ==1734== by 0x50676B4: recurring_action_timer (services_linux.c:212) >>> ==1734== by 0x719161A: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7190F0D: g_main_context_dispatch (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194937: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x7194D54: g_main_loop_run (in >>> /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5) >>> ==1734== by 0x402427: main (main.c:302) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org >> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker >> >> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org >> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf >> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
