Bug#292800: Digikam - huge memory leak when downloading from camera
On Tuesday 01 Feb 2005 19:49, Mark Purcell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:06:01AM +, Richard Lamont wrote: > > I started it again and looked at what was happening with top, and > > found that digikam was reserving memory of the same order of > > magnitude as the total size of the files downloaded. (After > > downloading about 130 pictures it had hogged about an extra 100 MB > > of RAM.) Closing the camera window freed the memory. > > I don't know if I would call this a memory leak as it does free the > memory after it has finished with it. A memory leak wouldn't retun > the allocated memory. > > That said I can confirm the behaviour as I just uploaded over 100 > pictures from a full 256Mb card and digikam ended up reserving over > 250Mb of main memory. That said my machine didn't thrash and was > still responding well. OK, so the 'memory leak' is a feature not a bug. :-) > Perhaps this is a design issue and as has been pointed out gphoto > keeps all photo's in memory as a matter of course. Indeed. However if it causes users' machines to lock up then it's bad design and needs to be changed. It's a simple as that. What is the point of the app cacheing the files that have been downloaded from the camera to disc, when the linux kernel uses spare RAM for disc cacheing anyway? Isn't it just adding a redundant layer of bloat that wastes memory and slows everything down? (I'm not sure how the BSD kernels behave.) > Can you try switching off other Linux processes and see if you > machine still starts to thrash. Then again if your machine is trying > to swap 1Gb of photo's with only 512Mb then perhaps you should also > 'invest' in some disk swap space to make your memory footprint over > the 1Gb. Shutting down other apps helps in that it frees up some memory, but this only makes a marginal difference. 1GB flash cards are becoming commonplace nowadays, whereas 1GB RAM in a PC is still relatively rare. I could add some swap, but once the machine starts doing a lot of swapping it will thrash horribly anyway. That's why I replaced the swap I had with an equivalent amount of RAM. To date, in the two years I have had this machine, 512MB has been ample - even for video editing, and the absence of swap has never been an issue. libgphoto2's memory usage is broken by design. It seems the upstream authors understand this, because this bug has been assigned a high priority on their bug tracker page. In fact there's already a patch there, although I'm not sure how official it is. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1098166&group_id=8874&atid=108874 -- Richard Lamont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#292800: Digikam - huge memory leak when downloading from camera
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:06:01AM +, Richard Lamont wrote: > I started it again and looked at what was happening with top, and found > that digikam was reserving memory of the same order of magnitude as the > total size of the files downloaded. (After downloading about 130 > pictures it had hogged about an extra 100 MB of RAM.) Closing the > camera window freed the memory. I don't know if I would call this a memory leak as it does free the memory after it has finished with it. A memory leak wouldn't retun the allocated memory. That said I can confirm the behaviour as I just uploaded over 100 pictures from a full 256Mb card and digikam ended up reserving over 250Mb of main memory. That said my machine didn't thrash and was still responding well. Perhaps this is a design issue and as has been pointed out gphoto keeps all photo's in memory as a matter of course. Can you try switching off other Linux processes and see if you machine still starts to thrash. Then again if your machine is trying to swap 1Gb of photo's with only 512Mb then perhaps you should also 'invest' in some disk swap space to make your memory footprint over the 1Gb. Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#292800: Digikam - huge memory leak when downloading from camera
FYI, I was just told this has already been reported to the gphoto2 maintainers: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1098166&group_id=8874&atid=108874 -- Paul Telford | 1024D/431B38BA | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] C903 0E85 9AF5 1B80 6A5F F169 D7E9 4363 431B 38BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#292800: Digikam - huge memory leak when downloading from camera
On Jan 29, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Richard Lamont wrote: Package: digikam Version: 0.7-3 Severity: important Hi Richard, I have forwarded your bug report to the upstream author of digikam, it is in the KDE bug tracking system as bug #98227. http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98227 Thanks, Paul. P.S. 1000 pictures in one day? Wow!! -- Paul Telford | 1024D/431B38BA | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] C903 0E85 9AF5 1B80 6A5F F169 D7E9 4363 431B 38BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#292800: Digikam - huge memory leak when downloading from camera
Package: digikam Version: 0.7-3 Severity: important Today I took over 1000 photos with my Canon Powershot S60 (USB PTP class camera), each about 700 KB in size (jpg). Digikam quite happily got the thumbnails for all of these, so I tried to download all the full-size images from the 1GB flash card. After a while the machine started thrashing horribly and it was impossible to switch virtual desktops. (The mouse cursor moved, jerkily, but that was my lot.) About 20 minutes later digikam died. (The machine then behaved OK.) It had downloaded about 400 pictures by then. I started it again and looked at what was happening with top, and found that digikam was reserving memory of the same order of magnitude as the total size of the files downloaded. (After downloading about 130 pictures it had hogged about an extra 100 MB of RAM.) Closing the camera window freed the memory. The machine uses 512MB RAM and no swap. (Yes I know, but I'm just a clueless luser so I don't understand why changing from 256 RAM + 256 swap to 512 RAM + 0 swap was a retrograde step. I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing la la la until Linus explains this.) $ dpkg --status digikam Package: digikam Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: graphics Installed-Size: 8756 Maintainer: Paul Telford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: i386 Version: 0.7-3 Depends: kdelibs4 (>= 4:3.2.3), libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libgcc1 (>= 1:3.4.1-3), libgdbm3, libgphoto2-2 (>= 2.1.4-8), libgphoto2-port0 (>= 2.1.4-8), libimlib2, libjpeg62, libkexif0 (>= 0.1), libkipi0 (>= 0.1), libqt3c102-mt (>= 3:3.3.3), libstdc++5 (>= 1:3.3.4-1), libtiff4, libx11-6 | xlibs (>> 4.1.0), libimlib2-dev Recommends: digikamimageplugins, kipi-plugins ii kdelibs4 3.3.2-1 ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20 ii libgcc1 3.4.3-6 ii libgdbm3 1.8.3-2 ii libgphoto2-2 2.1.5-2 ii libgphoto2-port0 2.1.5-2 ii libimlib2 1.1.2-3 ii libjpeg62 6b-9 ii libkexif0 0.1-2 ii libkipi0 0.1-2 ii libqt3c102-mt 3.3.3-7 ii libstdc++53.3.5-5 ii libtiff4 3.7.1-2 ii libx11-6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 ii xlibs 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 ii libimlib2-dev 1.1.2-3 un digikamimageplugins un kipi-plugins (I didn't know about the two recommended packages and have not tried installing them yet. KDE installed digikam, not me (IIRR)! I assume it isn't relevant to this bug. If it is, maybe this should be a dependancy, not a recommendation.) Debian sarge ii kernel-image-2.6.8-1-k7 2.6.8-10 ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20 I hope this info is useful. My apologies if it isn't. -- Richard Lamont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
