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 >> <przemysl...@gmail.com> 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 libuv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to libuv@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libuv. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.