Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 1, 2026. It is now read-only.

More specific memory checks#75

Merged
PetterS merged 2 commits intoPetterS:masterfrom
qwenger:feature_more_specific_memory_check
Nov 23, 2021
Merged

More specific memory checks#75
PetterS merged 2 commits intoPetterS:masterfrom
qwenger:feature_more_specific_memory_check

Conversation

@qwenger
Copy link
Collaborator

@qwenger qwenger commented Nov 15, 2021

Currently, when testing check_memory.py, most tracebacks come from standard packages, thus are not useful (if I understand tracemalloc correctly).

I suggest to filter for tracebacks originating only from quickjs/__init__.py or test_quickjs.py.

Note: we could also filter out the different unwanted packages, but then we'd end up with something like that (plus all the corresponding imports):

filters = [
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, tracemalloc.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, threading.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, re.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, re.sre_compile.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, re.sre_parse.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, weakref.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, _weakrefset.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, unittest.suite.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, unittest.case.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, unittest.loader.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, unittest.runner.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, unittest.result.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, fnmatch.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, concurrent.futures.thread.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, concurrent.futures._base.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, abc.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, traceback.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, posixpath.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, json.encoder.__file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, __file__),
    tracemalloc.Filter(False, "<unknown>"),
]

Note2: even after filtering, tracebacks remain... does that mean that we do have memory leaks in module.c?

@PetterS
Copy link
Owner

PetterS commented Nov 23, 2021

Note2: even after filtering, tracebacks remain... does that mean that we do have memory leaks in module.c?

We'll have to look into that, but yes, that should be a memory leak.

@PetterS PetterS merged commit 175ed52 into PetterS:master Nov 23, 2021
@qwenger qwenger deleted the feature_more_specific_memory_check branch April 2, 2022 12:04
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants