Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:51:07 +0800 From: "Intron is my alias on the Internet" <mag@intron.ac> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 105930 for review Message-ID: <courier.4505B01B.00012841@intron.ac> In-Reply-To: <20060911193600.7ab43fb6@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200609100956.k8A9uD0P094639@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609111145.52446.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060911193600.7ab43fb6@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:45:52 -0400):
>
>> On Sunday 10 September 2006 05:56, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> > PROBLEMS:
>> >
>> > 1. Why does uma_zdestroy(9) print message like:
>> >
>> > Freed UMA keg was not empty (100 items). Lost 2 pages of memory.
>> >
>> > Does it represent any problems?
>>
>> It means a memory leak.
>
> Because this is verbatim from the submitter and I don't know if he is
> subscribed to perforce@, we should tell him about it... CCed. :-)
>
> Bye,
> Alexander.
>
But I have ensure that calling to uma_zalloc() and calling to uma_zfree()
appear strictly in pair in my code. Even the simplest testing program
can still lead to this kind of warning message (uma_zfree() is just next
to uma_zalloc()):
uma_zalloc(...);
uma_zfree(...);
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Beijing, China
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?courier.4505B01B.00012841>