RE: Is it Event.pm or me that's loosing its memory?

I verified Allen's test under linux.  I also tested one_event() which had an
advantage that it will go to sleep if no events are available.  one_event()
also showed no growth.

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:26 PM
To: Joshua N Pritikin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is it Event.pm or me that's loosing its memory?


On May 12,  4:09am, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 01:10:03AM -0400, Allen Smith wrote:
> > On May 11, 11:28pm, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > That means that Event probably has a reference counting bug.
> >
> > Sigh... yes. I am wondering myself about a couple things in ev.c:
> > 	A. pe_event_invoke. Callbacks only return values via calling
> > 	   "unloop('value')", not returning something, right? Thus the
> > 	   G_VOID? Then why not also G_DISCARD?
>
> Look at the source code for call_sv in perl.c.  The only things that
> G_DISCARD does is turn on the ENTER/SAVETMPS FREETMPS/LEAVE pair.
> This is already done in _loop() so we don't need to do it again.
> i tried adding G_DISCARD and it doesn't make any difference.

Ah. I'd put it in in case of future changes in perl, still... but something
else of interest: if one substitutes while(1) {sweep();} for loop();, the
leak doesn't seem to happen, even giving it quite a while - even if it does
happen, it's definitely _per-iteration_ slower than with loop.

> > 	B. pe_event_release decreases the refcount for ev->mysv; the same
> > 	   happens in event_2sv thanks to the "sv_2mortal", which
> > 	   compensates for the SvREFCNT_inc. But ev->mysv is a
> > 	   reference. What decreases the refcount to the thing it's
> > 	   referring to?
>
> When the rv is destroyed then it does a SvREFCNT_dec on the SV to which it
> is pointing.  See the doc for newSVrv -- the sv is created with a
> refcnt=1, so this should work.  You can verify it with
> $Event::DebugLevel=3; which turns on a warning "Event=0x%x '%s' destroyed
> (SV=0x%x)".
>
> Oops, this warning isn't getting triggered.

It isn't? It does for me, whether one calls "loop" _or_ "sweep".

> i don't have much time but i'll try to look at this today.

Understand!

	-Allen

--
Allen Smith			http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/
September 11, 2001		A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin