forked from thirtythreeforty/neolink
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
feat(rtsp): fix file descriptor exhaustion and memory fragmentation #373
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
wafgo
wants to merge
2
commits into
QuantumEntangledAndy:master
Choose a base branch
from
wafgo:fix/sanitize-memory-pools
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering if we should not pool at all. In my case with a single camera (Reolink Doorbell) there are SO many different sizes coming out of
data.len()that the hash map ends up growing like crazy over time. Eventually it will become so saturated that it will not be possible to hold buffers in the hash map any longer.We could GC the hash map once in a while but it sort of defeats the pooling a bit. It's also a tradeoff on extra cycles as the map will need to be cleaned out and resized periodically which is not great.
Is there a strong reason to track buffers in the hash map to begin with? I don't think I understand the reason for why we got here in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some other thoughts: if the pooling is in place to try and reduce memory pressure and cycles from creating buffers (how bad is this though?) over and over then maybe we can do something where we have a fixed set of new buffers in the map that can be reused. For example:
data.len()over the course of some amount of hoursWe could extend the max size of buffers in the hash map to be 8MB or whatever's needed. What's important is that the hash map does not ever grow unbounded. This would also allow for getting rid of the logic that falls back to not pooling anything.