Hi Andreas,
Any ideas on where the remaining memory leaks can be found for opensmmppbox?
Your last post on this issue fixed a major memory issue. Well done.
rgds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:47:29 +0700
From: Hanh Le Bich <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does opensmppbox and smsbox have serious memory issues?
Message-ID:
<CA+p4DGwAHg-5ZXtvuNFAO7aMiNqeE3qkP7+FURBPm7m2rm_OXA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello,
I send the valgrind report following Mr. Rene advice:
valgrind --leak-check=full --track-origins=yes ./opensmppbox I('ll send
*smsbox* report by tomorrow)
As my observation, the memory leak of opensmmppbox is significant decreased,
even i haven't seen RAM consumption change for entire day, this is great.
Refer to the report, still leaking, isn't it?
==23650== LEAK SUMMARY:
==23650== definitely lost: 2,816 bytes in 172 blocks
==23650== indirectly lost: 910 bytes in 165 blocks
==23650== possibly lost: 4,608 bytes in 32 blocks
==23650== still reachable: 2,205,374 bytes in 25,408 blocks
==23650== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==23650== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not
shown.
==23650== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
==23650== ==23650== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun
with: -v ==23650== ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 45
from 10)
Also you can download the report at this link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbnkewitosiwv5i/opensmppbox_memleakcheck_20140502.
txt
Regards, Hanh.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Hand,
>
>
>
> Did you see the latest change by Rene committed to SVN (
> http://www.kannel.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/005612.html)
>
> Does it fix the memory issue you reported?
>
>
>
> rgds
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Hillel Bilman
>
> Manager eCommunicate
>
> mailto: [email protected]
>
> Cell: 083-2300002
>
> Landline: 011-443-6164
>
> Fax: 088-011-443-6164
>
>
>
> Social Media marketing campaigns (Facebook, Google+, Twitter, LinkedIn
> etc) ? Interactive Websites - .mobi Sites ? Mobile Apps(Android,
> iPhone, Blackberry, Nokia) - Premium Rated SMSs and short codes - SMS
> competitions and campaigns ? Lead Generation - opt-in subscription
> Billing ? MMS campaigns - USSD campaigns - WAP - Outlook SMS ? Bulk SMS
and Bulk Email ?
> Email 2 SMS 2 Email - Developer Kit for Mobile Services integration -
> Voice Over IP services
>
>
>
> *From:* Hanh Le Bich [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* 29 April 2014 12:25 PM
> *To:* Alexander Malysh
> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Does opensmppbox and smsbox have serious memory issues?
>
>
>
> It's happy to get it now. Thank a lot.
>
> Regards,
> Tuan.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Alexander Malysh <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> just checked daily snapshot, yes you can use it, this is uptodate.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Am 29.04.2014 um 04:44 schrieb Hanh Le Bich <[email protected]>:
>
>
>
> Dear hbilman & development team,
>
> I'm willing to help to provide more evident but i have no background
> to work in IT fields.
>
> Cause my server has no internet connection thus i cannot get the
> lastest SVN trunk. Normally i download source files via the daily
> snapshot, is it ok?
>
> Regards, Hanh.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:25 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Kannel developers,
>
> Hanh posted his Valgrind research to the user group for smsbox and
> opensmppbox. His results seem interesting and so I'm copying them to
> this thread so the Kannel developers can view them.
> These results can be viewed by following the thread on Wed, Apr 23,
> 2014 at
> 3:41 AM, by Hanh Le Bich <[email protected]> with the Subject: Re: 2
> Questions re Redis/Debian. (The email subject is not related to this
> issue.)
>
> His research shows that opensmppbox and smsbox may have serious memory
> issues.
> I use the word "may" as until others have confirmed his results, there
> could be a mistake somewhere.
> Is there anyone who has a test environment that can follow his
> approach and confirm for the Kannel community if opensmppbox and
> smsbox have serious memory issues or if his testing approach has flaws?
>
> His approach is:
> >> Let me describe a little bit for my application back end. It's
> >> pretty
> >> simple: i make a loop that for each second, it push an sms via
> >> kannel CGI for 1K mobile numbers, that mean throughput is 1000 msg/sec.
> >> My kannel configuration is simple too, it's only smsbox ->
> >> bearerbox
> >> -> SMSC (via smpp), no file storage, no SQL, no dlr (actually
> dlr-mask=8).
> > I even don't expect the sms can deliver > to all end users and the
> > app
> run some hours per day only. That why i
> > can play with the lasted SVN which don't care so much for the
> reliability.
>
> For smsbox:
> >>In the pass when using ver 1.4.3, it was fine for years. After
> >>upgrade to 1.5.0, after each few days, i realized smsbox is reset,
> >>then i found it exhaust my memory. It's funny that smsbox consume
> >>the mem and doesn't release. Example, if it occupies 50% your mem
> >>and you stop sms pushing, it will 50% forever except the box
restarting.
> >> That's all, same server with no other tasks, same back end, just
> >>different kannel version.
> >>
> >> Just paste the valgrind sum in here:
> >>
> >> ==27581== LEAK SUMMARY:
> >> ==27581== definitely lost: 1,077,904 bytes in 67,369 blocks
> >> ==27581== indirectly lost: 673,660 bytes in 67,366 blocks
> >> ==27581== possibly lost: 160 bytes in 13 blocks
> >> ==27581== still reachable: 1,240 bytes in 39 blocks
> >> ==27581== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
> >> ==27581== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are
> >> not shown.
> >> ==27581== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full
> >> --show-leak-kinds=all ==27581== ==27581== For counts of detected
> >> and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v ==27581== ERROR SUMMARY: 3
> >> errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 45 from 10)
>
> For opensmppbox
> >opensmppbox drains your memory 10 times faster than smsbox
> ==31087== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==31087== Copyright (C)
> 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
> ==31087== Using Valgrind-3.9.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright
> info ==31087== Command: /usr/local/sbin/opensmppbox -v -d --
> /etc/kannel/opensmppbox.conf ==31087== Parent PID: 31085 ==31087==
> ==31087== ==31087== HEAP SUMMARY:
> ==31087== in use at exit: 8,163,073 bytes in 36,550 blocks
> ==31087== total heap usage: 893,827 allocs, 857,277 frees, 295,662,079
> bytes allocated
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 49 (32 direct, 17 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely
> lost in loss record 485 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A37A1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
> ==31087== by 0x80A3D81: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
> ==31087== by 0x808B106: cfg_get_real (cfg.c:670)
> ==31087== by 0x8052769: main (opensmppbox.c:2291)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 79 (64 direct, 15 indirect) bytes in 4 blocks are definitely
> lost in loss record 529 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A37A1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
> ==31087== by 0x80A3D81: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
> ==31087== by 0x805D52F: msg_duplicate (msg-decl.h:80)
> ==31087== by 0x805651D: catenate_msg (opensmppbox.c:525)
> ==31087== by 0x805686B: check_multipart (opensmppbox.c:1481)
> ==31087== by 0x8057AD8: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1639)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 100 (80 direct, 20 indirect) bytes in 5 blocks are
> definitely lost in loss record 577 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A37A1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
> ==31087== by 0x80A3D81: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
> ==31087== by 0x805D6FD: msg_duplicate (msg-decl.h:80)
> ==31087== by 0x805651D: catenate_msg (opensmppbox.c:525)
> ==31087== by 0x805686B: check_multipart (opensmppbox.c:1481)
> ==31087== by 0x8057AD8: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1639)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 144 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 610 of
813
> ==31087== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
> ==31087== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
> ==31087== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
> ==31087== by 0x4412F2A: my_thread_global_init (in
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
> ==31087== by 0x44112F7: my_init (in
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
> ==31087== by 0x43EC93A: mysql_server_init (in
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
> ==31087== by 0x43EE078: mysql_init (in
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
> ==31087== by 0x8094F42: mysql_open_conn (dbpool_mysql.c:84)
> ==31087== by 0x80952C5: dbpool_increase (dbpool.c:194)
> ==31087== by 0x80953F6: dbpool_create (dbpool.c:160)
> ==31087== by 0x805B2B3: dlr_init_mysql (dlr_mysql.c:452)
> ==31087== by 0x8058AF3: dlr_init (dlr.c:254)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 400 (256 direct, 144 indirect) bytes in 16 blocks are
> definitely lost in loss record 680 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A37A1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
> ==31087== by 0x80A3D81: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
> ==31087== by 0x805474D: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:2105)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 2,160 bytes in 15 blocks are possibly lost in loss record
> 755 of
> 813
> ==31087== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
> ==31087== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
> ==31087== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
> ==31087== by 0x8097F4F: gwthread_create_real (gwthread-pthread.c:475)
> ==31087== by 0x80547B3: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:2124)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 2,160 bytes in 15 blocks are possibly lost in loss record
> 756 of
> 813
> ==31087== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
> ==31087== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
> ==31087== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
> ==31087== by 0x8097F4F: gwthread_create_real (gwthread-pthread.c:475)
> ==31087== by 0x8052F97: main (opensmppbox.c:2156)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 3,020 (1,040 direct, 1,980 indirect) bytes in 13 blocks are
> definitely lost in loss record 762 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A0DEF: gwlist_create_real (list.c:131)
> ==31087== by 0x805FC8C: sms_split (sms.c:339)
> ==31087== by 0x805517E: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:1008)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 44,032 bytes in 43 blocks are possibly lost in loss record
> 798 of
> 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x40275BA: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:687)
> ==31087== by 0x809722B: gw_native_realloc (gwmem-native.c:115)
> ==31087== by 0x80A35EB: octstr_grow (octstr.c:192)
> ==31087== by 0x80A64B3: octstr_insert_data (octstr.c:1469)
> ==31087== by 0x80A672A: octstr_append_data (octstr.c:1499)
> ==31087== by 0x80A90F9: octstr_format_valist_real (octstr.c:2486)
> ==31087== by 0x80A9366: octstr_format (octstr.c:2469)
> ==31087== by 0x80534F5: boxc_route_msg_to_smsc (opensmppbox.c:1791)
> ==31087== by 0x8057AAE: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1638)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== 4,986,528 (77,472 direct, 4,909,056 indirect) bytes in 4,842
> blocks are definitely lost in loss record 813 of 813
> ==31087== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
> ==31087== by 0x80970B3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
> ==31087== by 0x80A37A1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
> ==31087== by 0x80A3916: octstr_create_real (octstr.c:245)
> ==31087== by 0x80A908E: octstr_format_valist_real (octstr.c:2480)
> ==31087== by 0x80A9366: octstr_format (octstr.c:2469)
> ==31087== by 0x80534F5: boxc_route_msg_to_smsc (opensmppbox.c:1791)
> ==31087== by 0x8057AAE: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1638)
> ==31087== by 0x80983AE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
> ==31087== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
> ==31087== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
> ==31087==
> ==31087== LEAK SUMMARY:
> ==31087== definitely lost: 78,944 bytes in 4,882 blocks
> ==31087== indirectly lost: 4,911,232 bytes in 4,859 blocks
> ==31087== possibly lost: 48,496 bytes in 74 blocks
> ==31087== still reachable: 3,124,401 bytes in 26,735 blocks
> ==31087== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
> ==31087== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are
> not shown.
> ==31087== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full
> --show-leak-kinds=all ==31087== ==31087== For counts of detected and
> suppressed errors, rerun
> with: -v ==31087== ERROR SUMMARY: 10 errors from 10 contexts (suppressed:
> 45
> from 10)
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.kannel.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140502/d093ed3c/attachm
ent.html>
-------------- next part --------------
==23650== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==23650== Copyright (C)
2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==23650== Using Valgrind-3.9.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==23650== Command: /usr/local/sbin/opensmppbox -v -d --
/etc/kannel/opensmppbox.conf ==23650== Parent PID: 23648 ==23650== ==23650==
==23650== HEAP SUMMARY:
==23650== in use at exit: 2,213,708 bytes in 25,777 blocks
==23650== total heap usage: 688,951 allocs, 663,174 frees, 227,552,203
bytes allocated
==23650==
==23650== 48 (32 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost
in loss record 457 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A3FB1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
==23650== by 0x80A4591: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
==23650== by 0x8056DC6: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1569)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== 49 (32 direct, 17 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost
in loss record 458 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A3FB1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
==23650== by 0x80A4591: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
==23650== by 0x808B846: cfg_get_real (cfg.c:670)
==23650== by 0x8052839: main (opensmppbox.c:2292)
==23650==
==23650== 144 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 519 of 714
==23650== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
==23650== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
==23650== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
==23650== by 0x4412F2A: my_thread_global_init (in
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
==23650== by 0x44112F7: my_init (in
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
==23650== by 0x43EC93A: mysql_server_init (in
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
==23650== by 0x43EE078: mysql_init (in
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libmysqlclient.so.18.0.0)
==23650== by 0x8095752: mysql_open_conn (dbpool_mysql.c:84)
==23650== by 0x8095AD5: dbpool_increase (dbpool.c:200)
==23650== by 0x8095C06: dbpool_create (dbpool.c:166)
==23650== by 0x805B3D3: dlr_init_mysql (dlr_mysql.c:452)
==23650== by 0x8058BA3: dlr_init (dlr.c:257)
==23650==
==23650== 164 (80 direct, 84 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost
in loss record 531 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A15FF: gwlist_create_real (list.c:131)
==23650== by 0x80600DC: sms_split (sms.c:339)
==23650== by 0x805520E: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:1008)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== 450 (288 direct, 162 indirect) bytes in 18 blocks are definitely
lost in loss record 589 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A3FB1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
==23650== by 0x80A4591: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
==23650== by 0x80547DD: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:2106)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== 1,460 (1,184 direct, 276 indirect) bytes in 74 blocks are
definitely lost in loss record 654 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A3FB1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
==23650== by 0x80A4591: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
==23650== by 0x805DB4D: msg_duplicate (msg-decl.h:80)
==23650== by 0x80565AD: catenate_msg (opensmppbox.c:525)
==23650== by 0x80568FB: check_multipart (opensmppbox.c:1481)
==23650== by 0x8057B70: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1639)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== 1,555 (1,200 direct, 355 indirect) bytes in 75 blocks are
definitely lost in loss record 656 of 714
==23650== at 0x4027434: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:291)
==23650== by 0x80978C3: gw_native_malloc (gwmem-native.c:87)
==23650== by 0x80A3FB1: octstr_create_from_data_real (octstr.c:263)
==23650== by 0x80A4591: octstr_duplicate_real (octstr.c:377)
==23650== by 0x805D97F: msg_duplicate (msg-decl.h:80)
==23650== by 0x80565AD: catenate_msg (opensmppbox.c:525)
==23650== by 0x80568FB: check_multipart (opensmppbox.c:1481)
==23650== by 0x8057B70: smpp_to_bearerbox (opensmppbox.c:1639)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== 2,160 bytes in 15 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 663 of
714
==23650== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
==23650== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
==23650== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
==23650== by 0x809875F: gwthread_create_real (gwthread-pthread.c:475)
==23650== by 0x8053067: main (opensmppbox.c:2157)
==23650==
==23650== 2,304 bytes in 16 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 666 of
714
==23650== at 0x402574D: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618)
==23650== by 0x40111FB: _dl_allocate_tls (dl-tls.c:300)
==23650== by 0x46FA5A0: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (allocatestack.c:580)
==23650== by 0x809875F: gwthread_create_real (gwthread-pthread.c:475)
==23650== by 0x8054843: run_smppbox (opensmppbox.c:2125)
==23650== by 0x8098BBE: new_thread (gwthread-pthread.c:385)
==23650== by 0x46F9C38: start_thread (pthread_create.c:304)
==23650== by 0x482F78D: clone (clone.S:130)
==23650==
==23650== LEAK SUMMARY:
==23650== definitely lost: 2,816 bytes in 172 blocks
==23650== indirectly lost: 910 bytes in 165 blocks
==23650== possibly lost: 4,608 bytes in 32 blocks
==23650== still reachable: 2,205,374 bytes in 25,408 blocks
==23650== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==23650== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not
shown.
==23650== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
==23650== ==23650== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun
with: -v ==23650== ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 45
from 10)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.