| Ticket UUID: | 582810 | |||
| Title: | need to control SyncObj memory usage | |||
| Type: | Bug | Version: | obsolete: 8.4b1 | |
| Submitter: | nobody | Created on: | 2002-07-17 13:00:08 | |
| Subsystem: | 49. Threading | Assigned To: | vasiljevic | |
| Priority: | 5 Medium | Severity: | ||
| Status: | Closed | Last Modified: | 2003-10-28 20:23:26 | |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Closed By: | vasiljevic | |
| Closed on: | 2003-10-16 09:26:35 | |||
| Description: |
SyncObjRecord in tclThread.c has unlimited growth--it's realloced when full always with extra 8 slots, e.g. it should add these slots only when there is less than 8 slots filled | |||
| User Comments: |
vasiljevic added on 2003-10-16 16:26:35:
Logged In: YES user_id=95086 I'm closing this one since it is now merged in head. vasiljevic added on 2003-07-20 01:20:24: Logged In: YES user_id=95086 Works fine. During some simple quick tests without patch, the table grew to 256 entries. With patch, it was steady at 40/48 entries. I'd only consider using register for loop counters in such tight loops. Otherwise, I have no complaints. You can put it in 8.4.4, IMHO. hobbs added on 2003-07-19 00:28:51: Logged In: YES user_id=72656 Can you test the patch attached in one of your more intensive threaded tests? vasiljevic added on 2003-07-18 18:41:25: Logged In: YES user_id=95086 I agree with your oppinion. I also think that Andreas suggestion would be ok. Instead of always allocating new, we might just remember (in the LIFO free list) void slots and reuse them again. hobbs added on 2003-07-17 06:26:44: Logged In: YES user_id=72656 Zoran, can you comment on the effects of this? hobbs added on 2002-08-08 13:57:46: Logged In: YES user_id=72656 tclThread.c:RememberSyncObject The problem seems more fundamental, in that recPtr->num only ever increases (except at finalization, when set to zero again). The memory is released, but we aren't using it well, because if SyncObjects are forgotten, num isn't decremented, and there is no reuse of pointers in the list. andreas_kupries added on 2002-08-07 05:32:03: Logged In: YES user_id=75003 Question is how much memory do we lose here because of this. And, how much time do we lose by searching through the array for free entries ? Do we have info on the size of arrays during execution ? Alternative implementation: a free-list using one additional element in the structure, to anchor the list, and the references to the next free entry are kept in the free entries (integer's, not as pointers, relocatable). Your opinion Jeff ? nobody added on 2002-07-17 20:00:09: File Added - 27229: tcl.bug | |||
Attachments:
- tcl.bug [download] added by nobody on 2002-07-17 20:00:08. [details]