From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151CB452566
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 31 Oct 2019 19:43:37 +0300 (MSK)
References: <71d3e28eadd9ca54d5f564ed25d4276d472d5e6d.1572432961.git.imeevma@gmail.com>
 <20191031152306.GD2636@atlas>
From: Imeev Mergen <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <05dc9a5b-f3c8-37f9-3dd7-63cfc966bf11@tarantool.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 19:43:37 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191031152306.GD2636@atlas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/1] netbox: fix memleak in
 lbox_tuple_format_new()
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org
Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org


On 10/31/19 6:23 PM, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * imeevma@tarantool.org <imeevma@tarantool.org> [19/10/30 14:03]:
>> Memleak appeared due to the fact that when creating a dictionary
>> its reference count is 1 from the beginning. Later, when the
>> dictionary is used to create tuple_format, its reference counter
>> increased by 1 and it became equal to 2. After removing
>> tuple_format, the reference counter for dict decreased by one, so
>> it became equal to 1. Since ref counter is not equal to 0, dict
>> not deleted, causing a memory leak.
>>
>> Closes #4588
> I wonder if you could come up with a test case? Is memory used by
> dict accounted in any stats?
>
I did not find anything in box, and I did not see anything about
the statistics in the tuple_dictionary_new() function. Doesn't
look like we accounting this. At the moment, I can’t come up with
a test.

You think we should add this in stats?