W dniu piątek, 7 lipca 2017 10:29:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Przemysław Sobala
napisał:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 6 lipca 2017 17:30:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Ben Noordhuis
> napisał:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Przemysław Sobala
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hello
>> > [In the preface I want to say that it can be valgrind's false
>> positive].
>> > I'm building a C++ class that uses libuv (1.13.0) and libcurl (7.54.1)
>> for
>> > non-blocking file downloading. UV loop is being initialized in object's
>> > constructor, deinitialized in destructor and it's being kept a class
>> member.
>> > When it's a pointer type class member (uv_loop_t *), initialized via
>> malloc:
>> > loop = (uv_loop_t *) malloc(sizeof(uv_loop_t));
>> > if (loop == NULL) {
>> > throw std::bad_alloc();
>> > }
>> > uv_loop_init(loop);
>> > and deinitialized via uv_loop_close(loop) there's no memory leak.
>> >
>> > But when it's a struct type class member (uv_loop_t) it's initialized
>> > automatically while object construction, then in constructor I call
>> > uv_loop_init(&loop) and uv_loop_close(&loop) in destructor, valgrind
>> reports
>> > a memory leak:
>> > ==2337== 256 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 790
>> of 840
>> > ==2337== at 0x4C2FC47: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:785)
>> > ==2337== by 0x816560: maybe_resize (core.c:808)
>> > ==2337== by 0x816560: uv__io_start (core.c:847)
>> > ==2337== by 0x8181EB: uv_poll_start (poll.c:120)
>> > ==2337== by 0x417ECE:
>> > imageresizer::engine::FileDownloader::handle_socket(void*, int, int,
>> void*)
>> > (FileDownloader.cpp:298)
>> > ==2337== by 0x417E28:
>> > imageresizer::engine::FileDownloader::handle_socket_cb(void*, int, int,
>> > void*, void*) (FileDownloader.cpp:277)
>> > ==2337== by 0x7D1798: singlesocket (in
>> > /opt/WP/imageresizer-worker/dist/Debug/GNU-Linux/imageresizer-worker)
>> > ==2337== by 0x7D4AD9: multi_socket (in
>> > /opt/WP/imageresizer-worker/dist/Debug/GNU-Linux/imageresizer-worker)
>> > ==2337== by 0x7D4C86: curl_multi_socket_action (in
>> > /opt/WP/imageresizer-worker/dist/Debug/GNU-Linux/imageresizer-worker)
>> > ==2337== by 0x417D59:
>> > imageresizer::engine::FileDownloader::on_timeout(uv_timer_s*)
>> > (FileDownloader.cpp:248)
>> > ==2337== by 0x417D25:
>> > imageresizer::engine::FileDownloader::on_timeout_cb(uv_timer_s*)
>> > (FileDownloader.cpp:242)
>> > ==2337== by 0x81D4B4: uv__run_timers (timer.c:165)
>> > ==2337== by 0x8159AB: uv_run (core.c:353)
>> >
>> > Can you help me with getting rid of that memory leak?
>> >
>> > --
>> > regards
>> > Przemysław Sobala
>>
>>
>> Check the return value of uv_loop_close(). My guess it's UV_EBUSY,
>> indicating the event loop can't be closed yet because there are open
>> handles or requests.
>>
>
> Yes, but uv_loop_close() returns UV_EBUSY in both cases.
> Should I wait some time for all handles to close or iterate over all
> handles inside loop and call uv_close() ?
>
I've configured my asynchronous loop stop callback as this:
uv_async_init(&loop, &loop_close_event, [](uv_async_t* handle) {
uv_stop(handle->loop);
uv_walk(handle->loop,
[](uv_handle_t *handle, void *arg) {
uv_close(handle, NULL);
}, NULL);
});
And now uv_loop_close returns 0 and valgrind reports no memory leak. Is
that a correct approach?
--
regards
Przemysław Sobala
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"libuv" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libuv.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
