Hello,

I'm using MOD_APACHE 3.2.8 (from binary dist). with Apache 2.0.55 under Wind
ows XP Pro.
I encounter memory leaks (~ 16 Ko per request) with a very basic handler lik
e :

import mod_python
from mod_python import util

def handler(req):
F=util.FieldStorage( req )   
return mod_python.apache.OK

And sending an HTTP request like : 

====  Output from TCPWATCH ====
POST http://localhost:80/python/Alertes.py HTTP/1.0
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=--------061006144341906
Content-Length: 209
Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Host: www.tx2-localhost
Accept: text/html, */*
User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Indy Library)
Proxy-Authorization: Basic Og==

----------061006144341906
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="TYPE"

LAST_ALERTS
----------061006144341906
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="FILEAGE"

180

----------061006144341906--
====

Has somebody encountered the same problem ?
Is there a turn-around  or a fix that can be forecasted ?

Best regards,   Laurent.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Laurent Blanquet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using MOD_APACHE 3.2.8 (from binary dist). with Apache 2.0.55 under Wi
ndows XP Pro.
> I encounter memory leaks (~ 16 Ko per request) with a very basic handler l
ike :
>
> import mod_python
> from mod_python import util
>
> def handler(req):
>     F=util.FieldStorage( req )
>     return mod_python.apache.OK
>
> And sending an HTTP request like :
>
> ====  Output from TCPWATCH ====
> POST http://localhost:80/python/Alertes.py HTTP/1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=--------061006144341906
> Content-Length: 209
> Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
> Host: www.tx2-localhost
> Accept: text/html, */*
> User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Indy Library)
> Proxy-Authorization: Basic Og==
>
> ----------061006144341906
> Content-Disposition: form-data; name="TYPE"
>
> LAST_ALERTS
> ----------061006144341906
> Content-Disposition: form-data; name="FILEAGE"
>
> 180
>
> ----------061006144341906--
> ====
>
> Has somebody encountered the same problem ?
> Is there a turn-around  or a fix that can be forecasted ?

This is the first that this has been reported, so forecasting a fix is
difficult. It would be helpful if you created a JIRA issue at
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON

util.FieldStorage is straight Python code, so I'm surprised that it
would be leaking, particularly 16K per request. Can you offer any more
details? How are you testing, other mod_python Apache directives you may
be using an so on.

It's probably best to keep this discussion on the developer's list so
that the thread doesn't get muddled.

Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Laurent Blanquet wrote: 
>
> This is the first that this has been reported, so forecasting a fix is
> difficult. It would be helpful if you created a JIRA issue at
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON
>
> util.FieldStorage is straight Python code, so I'm surprised that it
> would be leaking, particularly 16K per request. Can you offer any more
> details? How are you testing, other mod_python Apache directives you may
> be using an so on.

Laurent,

Also, could you confirm that it *is* FieldStorage that is leaking (if
you haven't already) by just reading the request body, bypassing
FieldStorage completely. eg.

import mod_python
from mod_python import util

def handler(req):
data = req.read()
return mod_python.apache.OK

Thanks,
Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Laurent Blanquet wrote: 
[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> This is the first that this has been reported, so forecasting a fix is
> difficult. It would be helpful if you created a JIRA issue at
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON
>
> util.FieldStorage is straight Python code, so I'm surprised that it
> would be leaking, particularly 16K per request.

That was a stupid statement on my part since FieldStorage does call some
mod_python code that *is* written in C, and could very well leak.  It is
however correct to say that we have not had a leak reported against
FieldStorage in particular. There were some leaks in 3.1.4, but I
thought we caught them for the 3.2.7 release.

Back to the code.

Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Laurent,

Could you run a couple of more tests?

test1.py
--------
from mod_python import apache, util

def handler(req):
pqs = util.parse_qsl('foo=a&bar=b')
req.content_type = 'text/plain'
req.write('mod_python.util.parse_qsl')
return apache.OK

test2.py
--------
from mod_python import apache
import cgi

def handler(req):
pqs = cgi.parse_qsl('foo=a&bar=b')
req.content_type = 'text/plain'
req.write('cgi.parse_qsl')
return apache.OK


Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hello,

I've run the 2 tests, and I do not see any leaks.

Laurent.

> Laurent,
>
> Could you run a couple of more tests?
>
> test1.py
> --------
> from mod_python import apache, util
>
> def handler(req):
>      pqs = util.parse_qsl('foo=a&bar=b')
>      req.content_type = 'text/plain'
>      req.write('mod_python.util.parse_qsl')
>      return apache.OK
>
> test2.py
> --------
> from mod_python import apache
> import cgi
>
> def handler(req):
>      pqs = cgi.parse_qsl('foo=a&bar=b')
>      req.content_type = 'text/plain'
>      req.write('cgi.parse_qsl')
>      return apache.OK
>
>
> Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]