[nanomsg] Re: What has changed since 0.2 in socket handling?
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:35:13 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Yes, your assumptions are valid. This looks more like a bug. Can you
provide a minimal test case?
As for the leak it looks like having to do with async DNS name
resolving (getaddrinfo_a) not sure whether it's an actual leak of just
a libc artifact.
Martin
On 21/11/14 21:46, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use nanomsg with a wrapper library that integrates the
> networking request-response pattern into the GLIB mainloop via
> nn_getsockopt(NN_SOL_SOCKET, NN_RCVFD).
>
> IIRC, it worked well and without any leaks back then with nanomsg
> 0.2-ish.
>
> Now, I have upgraded to 0.5 and e.g. on Fedora 20 and 21, my
> example programs lock up after some time. netstat shows there are
> many sockets in TIME_WAIT state even after both te client and
> server programs have quit.
>
> Also, this memory leak was observed on both Fedora 20 and 21:
>
> ==18504== 43,776 (21,888 direct, 21,888 indirect) bytes in 342
> blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3,232 of 3,232 ==18504==
> at 0x4A0645D: malloc (in
> /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==18504==
> by 0x3E902DA99C: gaih_inet (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.18.so) ==18504==
> by 0x3E902DE38C: getaddrinfo (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.18.so) ==18504==
> by 0x5085FEF: handle_requests (in /usr/lib64/libanl-2.18.so)
> ==18504== by 0x3E90E07EE4: start_thread (in
> /usr/lib64/libpthread-2.18.so) ==18504== by 0x3E902F4B8C: clone
> (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.18.so)
>
> My understanding with nanomsg 0.2 was that I need these with
> REQ/REP:
>
> server: initialization: nn_socket, nn_bind in the handler loop:
> nn_recv[msg] + nn_freemsg on the incoming message, then
> nn_send[msg] to the client when quitting: nn_close
>
> client (per REQ/REP message exchange): nn_socket, nn_connect,
> nn_send[msg], nn_recv[msg], nn_close
>
> Do I need to nn_close() the socket on the server side or anything
> else after the reply was sent?
>
> Thanks in advance, Zoltán Böszörményi
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUcHTrAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y4B4H/Arp/WuJtiKseG0LjZ/b31g4
pLp6jKmCZQ16GId4RFwMHksjFkbm9yhzpB87/odEsAJnpfib62tF5LnZLVkvr7GO
Ewe8nGSXhAplOZPgeGdiFeExrIXv9UjAqPIamob+wiS6UbpL4p2NskEAkCa8c/o3
fjNDFySQuOPU0VOJGtIccfbwLyQp8HMqc55DqLuTTP2sWMvPEXJjHztmI6ApAkUg
+Q4DblRshmL1NxOO3vD8ps97leo49VH9VH46j1BmjSG/h+qPqAvc6JvySCNwaoLR
Lc42gcqFujoWJur+B5n88liXBFNXXSkOpC1+LIOBbKmQnuHBQ+656CAKH8zoFH4=
=hyF/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
