Before I forget; without gc_collect_cycles I get the following output
using memory_get_usage instead of memory_get_peak_usage:
int(634640)
int(635392)
Mike
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 19:44 +0200, Mike van Riel wrote:
> I have ran the script that you provided and got the following results:
>
> int(635192)
> int(635944)
>
> Which is far less than the peak memory result.
>
> I use memory_get_peak_usage to measure what the worst case memory output
> is in my application. I expect this to be the actual memory used (and
> thus when the server starts swapping if this number exceeds the physical
> memory).
>
> Is my assertion about the meaning of memory_get_peak_usage incorrect?
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:28 +0200, David Zülke wrote:
> > Please test the exact thing I suggested :)
> >
> > var_dump(memory_get_usage());
> > token_get_all(file_get_contents(<FILE>));
> > gc_collect_cycles();
> > var_dump(memory_get_usage());
> >
> > memory_get_peak_usage() is irrelevant, and USE_ZEND_ALLOC won't give
> > accurate results anymore when looking at memory usage.
> >
> > If the above gives the same numbers you got initially, then there's a
> > memleak in token_get_all().
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On 06.06.2011, at 22:30, Mike van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > David and Pauli,
> > >
> > > When I change the test script to:
> > >
> > > var_dump(memory_get_peak_usage());
> > > gc_collect_cycles();
> > > token_get_all(file_get_contents(<FILE>));
> > > gc_collect_cycles();
> > > var_dump(memory_get_peak_usage());
> > >
> > > And execute the following bash line preceding:
> > >
> > > export USE_ZEND_ALLOC=0
> > >
> > > I get the following output:
> > >
> > > int(8240)
> > > int(8240)
> > >
> > > When I remove the gc_collect_cycles I get the same result.
> > > Even assigning the results to a variable do not increase the peak memory.
> > >
> > > FYI: When I change the argument of memory_get_peak_usage to 'true', I get
> > > the following results:
> > >
> > > int(262144)
> > > int(262144)
> > >
> > > This amount is astoundingly less than the previous conclusions and less
> > > than my own calculations would show.
> > > Of course this leads me to the following questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Does it hurt to disable the Zend MM?
> > > 2. Can it be done from inside a PHP Script?
> > > 3. Why is the memory consumption so much lower, even lower than my
> > > calculations?
> > >
> > > I assume it is a good thing to at least try to create an easy way to
> > > reproduce the issue (cannot include my test file) and create a bug report
> > > about this :)
> > >
> > > Thank you for your assistance thus far.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 15:36:43 +0200, Julien Pauli wrote:
> > >> Seems like leak.
> > >>
> > >> Try disabling ZendMM to see if something noticeable happens (memory
> > >> peak should be lower).
> > >> USE_ZEND_ALLOC=0
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Julien
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David Zülke
> > >> <david.zue...@bitextender.com> wrote:
> > >>> Smells like a memory leak if gc_collect_cycles() doesn't fix it.
> > >>>
> > >>> David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
