directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Norval Hope (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Created: (DIRSERVER-1258) memory leak (outstanding requests) in SearchHandler
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:15:44 GMT
memory leak (outstanding requests) in SearchHandler 

                 Key: DIRSERVER-1258
             Project: Directory ApacheDS
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: core
    Affects Versions: 1.5.4
            Reporter: Norval Hope
             Fix For: 1.5.5

I think there is a memory leak in SearchHandler as I'm reviewing to see if
some memory leaks I experienced in the old <1.5.0 release code base
have been resolved. As best I can tell (apologies if I'm missing
something) there seem to be some different probs in the new
implementation regarding calling of
session.unregisterOutstandingRequest( req ) (the old impl had some
probs in the similar but now defunct use of SessionRegistry):
 1. Note that SearchHandler.handleIgnoringReferrals() always calls
session.registerOutstandingRequest( req ) immediately on entry
 2. When it delegates to handleRootDseSearch() i don't see a
corresponding session.unregisterOutstandingRequest( req ) call, isn't
one required?
 3. I'm not sure what the right behaviour is for
handlePersistentSearch(), but I'd expect that logically
session.unregisterOutstandingRequest( req ) would need to be called
too (or in this case is the req considered to be outstanding
 4. In the other normal search cases, shouldn't
session.unregisterOutstandingRequest( req ) be in a finally block so
it is also called when exceptions are encountered? (they are unfortunately not uncommon in
the VD usecases I deal with, due to custom partitions written by 3rd parties)
 5. The old impl had a memory leak for searches when no results were
returned, as best I can tell the new cursor stuff doesn't suffer the
same problem but just wanted to throw this boundary case out there for
special consideration.
  6. I had a look in the debugger and I think I am seeing evidence of a leak (LdapSession.outstandingRequests.size()
doesn't return to 0 after a single search is submitted by a single client, which my expectation
is that it should)

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message