Theo Van Dinter writes: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 11:13:46PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > > > I do think that we still have leaks elsewhere since the process memory > > > continues to grow, but it's much lower than before. I'll keep digging. > > > > Please do... > > > > Last time I looked, there were some tiny leaks over time in the perl > > interpreter, but nothing to be worried about (since we restart > > every N messages in spamd and mass-check). > > Well, that's not a reason to not be worried about them. :) Not everyone > restarts their processes, so it's a problem we should deal with if we can. > > The more I look at things, the more I believe there's a major leak > related to the URIDNSBL plugin. Unfortunately, I can no longer figure > out how that code works due to the complexity. I've spent a good amount > of time looking at it and find that it's too confusing to follow. > > In short, if I run just SURBL rules, I OOM. If I run other network > tests (say, RCVD_IN_XBL,) I don't. If I don't run net rules at all, I > don't OOM. Therefore it seems as if the plugin is the issue. I noticed > that URIDNSBL is the only thing using the AsyncLoop code, so there could > be a problem in there instead/as well. > > Justin, since you were the one who put in AsyncLoop, can you poke around and > figure what's causing the issue?
DNSBL tests in Dns.pm also use AsyncLoop. I'll take a look... --j.
