From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 29 00:16:35 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0967337B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mail.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2626943F75
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from l.ertl@univie.ac.at)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (adslle.cc.univie.ac.at [131.130.102.11])
	by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6T7GH2W129100;
	Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:16:21 +0200
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:16:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030729051133.GV10708@funkthat.com>
Message-ID: <20030729091605.U814@leelou.in.tern>
References: <20030729051133.GV10708@funkthat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-DCC-ZID-Univie-Metrics: unet 4244; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: fixed another leak in USB code
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:16:35 -0000

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, John-Mark Gurney wrote:

> Ok, those of you coming with panics due to kmem exhaustion w/ USB, I
> have fixed another leak.  For some reason I assumed that big blocks
> were being deallocated upon free, not being put back on the freelist.
> (Have I mentioned how much it sucks that the USB code it self has five
> different allocators?)
>
> As mentioned in the commit message, I did some testing, and a simple
> bulk transfer over aue did not increase the devbuf memory usage, while
> before this patch, I got it quickly over 20megs and growing.
>
> Sorry for the breakage.

Thanks!

regards,
le

-- 
Lukas Ertl                             eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
UNIX Systemadministrator               Tel.:  (+43 1) 4277-14073
Vienna University Computer Center      Fax.:  (+43 1) 4277-9140
University of Vienna                   http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/