Re: [Gimp-user] tile-cache "leak"?
Hi, Alex Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why are you using Xvfb? There's absolutely no reason to do that. > > hmm... i've started with gimp 1.2, and back then, i think it did need > a X server to aquire fonts, if i remember it correctly. So, i'll call > it a legacy... If you compile gimp 2.2 with the --enable-gimp-console configure option, the resulting gimp-console-2.2 binary will not even link GTK+ (and thus X11 any longer). Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] tile-cache "leak"?
Sven Neumann wrote: Why are you using Xvfb? There's absolutely no reason to do that. hmm... i've started with gimp 1.2, and back then, i think it did need a X server to aquire fonts, if i remember it correctly. So, i'll call it a legacy... We have run GIMP in memory profilers to eliminate memory leaks but of course we might have missed something. Your best bet is to run a valgrind session with --leak-check=yes --num-callers=12 and show us the result. Ok, i'll do that when the box is not too busy. thanks so far. axelm ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] tile-cache "leak"?
Hi, Alex Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm using Gimp (2.2.3) and Perl Gimp to render/paint images > automatically on my website (with gimp running on a Xvfb display > without an interface). Why are you using Xvfb? There's absolutely no reason to do that. > That works pretty well, but i notice that Gimp's memory footprint > grows in line with the number of images i did create. Images are > properly returned, and don't show up in Gimp's image list after > they're done (and returned from the script). We have run GIMP in memory profilers to eliminate memory leaks but of course we might have missed something. Your best bet is to run a valgrind session with --leak-check=yes --num-callers=12 and show us the result. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] tile-cache "leak"?
I'm using Gimp (2.2.3) and Perl Gimp to render/paint images
automatically on my website (with gimp running on a Xvfb display without
an interface). That works pretty well, but i notice that Gimp's memory
footprint grows in line with the number of images i did create. Images
are properly returned, and don't show up in Gimp's image list after
they're done (and returned from the script).
Additionally, i'm trying to clean up stale images regularly with a
script like:
@array = Gimp::gimp_image_list();
while ($img = shift(@array)) {
print "Deleting Image: $img\n";
Gimp::gimp_image_delete($img);
$delcount++;
}
which seems to work for images where the script died while rendering
(reports about 1 or 2 images after having created about 500 - 1000
images in a session). However, gimp's memory footprint still continues
to grow without the script above reporting any open images, and i have
to restart gimp every few hundred images to reduce it's memory usage.
The script-fu and Perl-Server footprints are fine - they're not growing
at all.
So, are my scripts buggy and leaking some (which?) kinds of resources?
Are there any other methods to expire stale objects ("zombie" drawables
not associated to any image - is this possible?) or is Gimp / it's
plugins itself leaking? Does anybody else experience this?
Any advice appreciated.
cheers
Alex Mayrhofer
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
