[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r12801 - in trunk/subversion: include libsvn_client libsvn_ra libsvn_ra_dav libsvn_ra_local libsvn_ra_svn

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-01-22 18:05:52 CET

On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 02:33, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> This doc string says that RA requests will "continue to use @a pool
> for memory allocation", referring the pool parameter above, which was
> passed to svn_ra_open() and presumably is preserved in the session
> object.
> But this seems to contradict the doc strings of the svn_ra_* functions
> themselves. For examples:

Ha. An interesting argument against trying to document our pool policy
in every docstring: it's too hard to say it succinctly enough to say it
over and over again.

What the caller needs to know is that the lifetime of the returned
ra-session object is governed by the passed-in pool. So, we shouldn't
try to document any more of that.

The callee will use the ra-session pool (as opposed to the temporary
pool) every time it needs to allocate memory in order to mutate the
ra-session object. For instance, if the ra_svn client needed to
reconnect to the server (say, because we implement an ra_lib->retarget
and the svnserve doesn't support retargeting), that would likely require
allocating memory with the ra-session pool.

This rule is part of our global pool-usage conventions; its simplest
manifestation is in functions like svn_stringbuf_appendcstr().

> If that initial pool is used for much beyond the allocation of the
> session object, then won't we have a memory leak problem when ra
> functions are called repeatedly in loops? Because even if the caller
> dutifully passes a reuseable pool to each svn_ra_foo() call, some
> allocation would still be happening in that original pool, beyond the

That depends on when the implementation chooses to allocate new memory.
A loop of svn_stringbuf_setempty() and svn_stringbuf_appendcstr() would
appear to have a memory leak because svn_stringbuf_appendcstr()
potentially allocates memory in the stringbuf pool on each call, but in
reality the stringbuf will never use more than a constant factor times
the maximum size of the string.

For an ra-session object it's harder to define a theoretical limit like
that, but we're unlikely to see a practical problem if we use the
ra-session pool as sparingly as possible.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 22 18:07:12 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.