I ran some more tests with both my original code and some test codes, now with the 0.5 release version. I would conclude that memory is not leaking. The memory usage as reported by top is the actual memory used or having been just used. Although the usage number does not drop after the code finishes, it does not further grow with new runs. Actually with new runs the memory usage starts afresh.
It could be that the release version of 0.5 fixes this. Anyway before any further evidence, we can disregard this thread now. On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 10:11:46 AM UTC+8, Yichao Yu wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Luke Stagner <lstag...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > In trying to create a reduced test case I figured out the source of my > > memory leak. It wasn't caused by Julia but by an external library I was > > Good to know. > > > calling (Sundials.jl). Pulling the dev version of Sundials.jl fixed the > > issue for me. > > And good to know it's fixed. > > > > > K Leo, if you are using any external library, that may be the cause of > the > > memory leak you are seeing. > > > > -Luke > > > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:52:23 PM UTC-7, Yichao Yu wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Yichao Yu <yyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Luke Stagner <lstag...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> I actually ran into this issue too. I have a routine that calculates > >> >> fast > >> >> ion orbits that uses a lot of memory (90%). Here is the code (sorry > its > >> >> not > >> >> very clean). I tried to run the function `make_distribution_file` > in a > >> >> loop > >> >> in julia but it never released the memory between calls. I tried > >> >> inserting > >> >> `gc()` manually but that didn't do anything either. > >> > > >> > I don't have time currently but I'll try to reproduce it in a few > days. > >> > What's your versioninfo() and how did you install julia? > >> > >> In the mean time, I would also appreciate if you can reduce it a > >> little, especially if you can remove some of the external > >> dependencies. > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> -Luke > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 3:08:52 PM UTC-7, K leo wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> The only package used (at the global level) is DataFrames. Does > that > >> >>> not > >> >>> release memory? > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:05:58 AM UTC+8, K leo wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> No. After myfunction() finished and I am at the REPL prompt, top > >> >>>> shows > >> >>>> Julia taking 49%. And after I did gc(), it shows Julia taking > 48%. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:05:56 AM UTC+8, Randy Zwitch > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Does the problem go away if you run gc()? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 3:55:14 PM UTC-4, K leo wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion about valgrind. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Can someone please let me first understand the expected > behaviour > >> >>>>>> for > >> >>>>>> memory usage. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Let's say when I first starts Julia REPL it takes 5% of RAM > >> >>>>>> (according > >> >>>>>> to top). Then I include "myfile.jl" and run myfunction(). > During > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> execution of myfunction(), memory allocation of Julia reaches > 40% > >> >>>>>> of RAM > >> >>>>>> (again according to top). Say running myfunction() involves no > >> >>>>>> allocation > >> >>>>>> of global objects - all object used are local. Then when > >> >>>>>> myfunction() > >> >>>>>> finished and I am at the REPL prompt, should top show the memory > >> >>>>>> usage of > >> >>>>>> Julia drops down to the previous level (5% of RAM)? My current > >> >>>>>> observation > >> >>>>>> is that it doesn't. Is this the expected behaviour? > >> >>>>>> > >> >> >
