On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 16:10 +0900, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Zed Shaw wrote:
> 
> > And where are you getting your information that free doesn't free
> > memory?  I'd like to read that since all my years of C coding says that
> > is dead wrong.  Care to tell me how malloc/free would report 80M with
> > Mutex but properly show the ram go down when there is no-Mutex?
> 
> a nice explanation:
> 
<snip>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/browse_frm/thread/23e7be26dd21434a/2f84b3dc080c7519?lnk=gst&q=memory+not+really+freed&rnum=9#2f84b3dc080c7519
> 
> the paper referenced is also good.
> 
> ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/garbage/allocsrv.ps

So, a posting to a news group from some guy in 2001 (5 years old) and a
paper written in 1995 (11 years old) that has references to papers as
old as 1964, none of which say that measurements of RAM will behave as
I've demonstrated *today*.  Then more usenet postings (still no C code
that demonstrates this magic), and finally a recent article from
linuxjournal describing the Linux memory, but nothing that really says
memory will stay around at 80M levels even 20-30 seconds after all ram
has been supposedly freed.

Riiight.  Sounds like I'll just go back to my now working program with
it's fancy "Sync" instead of "Mutex" technology, since obviously there's
no memory leak (even though we consistently demonstrate this fixes it in
several situations).

http://pastie.caboo.se/10317

http://pastie.caboo.se/10194


-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.