>> Well, you could read it differently. Look at images >> 233 to 259, then look at 260. Now why are all those >> destroyed individually, when one destroy, the one in >> 260 could take care of them all? >> > Did these all result from calls to ap_destroy_sub_req?
Could very well be. Guess that showing where the call is taking place could be usefull. > That would explain the pattern of the graphs. Yes. However, my question, and point, can't we do without destroying all the subreqs individualy and just destroy the request? Sander
