Skip to content
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

Don't keep the full info of all children in memory #11282

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 25, 2014

Conversation

icewind1991
Copy link
Contributor

Improves the memory footprint for the file scanner (30MB -> 5MB for my local test)

Fixes #10954 for the most part

Note, I'm working on additional (less significant) improvements for this issue but those require larger changes and depend on #10993 and are thus not suited for backporting to stable7

cc @DeepDiver1975 @PVince81 @th3fallen

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 24, 2014

🚀 Test PASSed. 🚀
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://ci.owncloud.org//job/pull-request-analyser/7569/

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

@icewind1991 do I understand this correctly: you moved the loop into a separate function, so the $children will get garbage collected earlier, is that correct ?

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

Works 👍

@icewind1991
Copy link
Contributor Author

do I understand this correctly: you moved the loop into a separate function, so the $children will get garbage collected earlier, is that correct ?

Yes

@bantu
Copy link

bantu commented Sep 25, 2014

Memory used by $children variables keeps piling up due to recursion. Seems to make sense.
👍

icewind1991 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2014
Don't keep the full info of all children in memory
@icewind1991 icewind1991 merged commit 6365c57 into master Sep 25, 2014
@icewind1991
Copy link
Contributor Author

@karlitschek I assume we want to backport this for #10954

@icewind1991 icewind1991 deleted the scanner-memory-stable7 branch September 25, 2014 13:53
@MorrisJobke
Copy link
Contributor

I assume we want to backport this for #10954

As this is a gold ticket: Yes

@MorrisJobke
Copy link
Contributor

stable7 bdc26c6

@karlitschek
Copy link
Contributor

yes please. Thanks guys

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

Should we backport this to stable6, to improve #10954 ?
Seems to be low-risk

@karlitschek
Copy link
Contributor

Good idea. Please backport

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

Will do

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

stable6: c526ebb

Will have a quick test to confirm it still works.

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

Scanning still works correctly.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 15, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[6.0.4] Error during the 'rescan' process.
6 participants