[PATCH 2/5] open_issues/exex_memory_leaks.mdwn: delete file.

[address@hidden]

---
 open_issues/exec_memory_leaks.mdwn | 121 -----------------------------
 1 file changed, 121 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 open_issues/exec_memory_leaks.mdwn

diff --git a/open_issues/exec_memory_leaks.mdwn 
b/open_issues/exec_memory_leaks.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 1fc5a928..00000000
--- a/open_issues/exec_memory_leaks.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,121 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
-
-There are is some memory leak in [[`exec`|hurd/translator/exec]].
-
-[[!toc]]
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-11
-
-    <braunr> the exec servers seems to leak a lot
-    <braunr> server*
-    <braunr> exec now uses 109M on darnassus
-    <braunr> it really leaks a lot
-    <pinotree> only 109mb? few months ago, exec on exodar was taking more than
-      200mb after few days of uptime with builds done
-    <braunr> i wonder how much it takes on the buildds
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-17
-
-    <braunr> the exec leak is tricky
-    <braunr> bddebian: btw, look at the TODO file in the hurd source code
-    <braunr> bddebian: there is a not from thomas bushnell about that
-    <braunr> "*** Handle dead name notifications on execserver ports. !
-    <braunr> not sure it's still a todo item, but it might be worth checking
-    <bddebian> braunr: diskfs_execboot_class = ports_create_class (0, 0);
-      This is what would need to change right?  It should call some cleanup
-      routine in the first argument?
-    <bddebian> Would be ideal if it could just use deadboot() from exec.
-    <braunr> bddebian: possible
-    <braunr> bddebian: hum execboot, i'm not so sure
-    <bddebian> Execboot is the exec task, no?
-    <braunr> i don't know what execboot is
-    <bddebian> It's from libdiskfs
-    <braunr> but "diskfs_execboot_class" looks like a class of ports used at
-      startup only
-    <braunr> ah
-    <braunr> then it's something run in the diskfs users ?
-    <bddebian> yes
-    <braunr> the leak is in exec
-    <braunr> if clients misbehave, it shouldn't affect that server
-    <bddebian> That's a different issue, this was about the TODO thing 
-    <braunr> ah
-    <braunr> i don't know
-    <bddebian> Me either :)
-    <bddebian> For the leak I'm still focusing on do-bunzip2 but I am baffled
-      at my results..
-    <braunr> ?
-    <bddebian> Where my counters are zero if I always increment on different
-      vars but wild freaking numbers if I increment on malloc and decrement on
-      free
-
-
-# 2012-11-25
-
-After twelve hours worth of `fork/exec` ([[GCC]]'s `check-c` part of the
-testsuite), we got:
-
-      PID  UID  PPID  PGrp  Sess TH  Vmem   RSS %CPU     User   System Args
-        4    0     3     1     1 10  392M  262M  0.0  2:18.29     2hrs 
/hurd/exec
-
-The *RSS* seems a tad high.  Also the system part of CPU time consumption is
-quite noticeable.  In comparison:
-
-        0    0     1     1     1 19  131M 1.14M  0.0  3:30.25  9:17.79 
/hurd/proc
-        3    0     1     1     1 224 405M 12.6M  0.2 42:20.25    67min ext2fs 
--readonly --multiboot-command-line=root=device:hd0s6 --host-priv-port=1 
--device-master-port=2 --exec-server-task=3 -T typed device:hd0s6
-      276    0     3     1     1 344 442M 28.2M  0.6 48:09.36    91min 
/hurd/ext2fs /dev/hd2s5
-
-
-# 2012-12-20
-
-After running the libtool testsuite for some time:
-
-      PID TH#  UID  PPID  PGrp  Sess TH  Vmem   RSS %CPU     User   System Args
-        4        0     3     1     1 11  334M  203M 60.8  3:19.73     4hrs 
/hurd/exec
-            0                                        0.0  0:20.33 27:02.47 
-            1                                        0.0  0:31.10 32:21.13 
-            2                                        0.0  0:25.68 27:42.33 
-            3                                        0.0  0:00.00  0:00.00 
-            4                                        5.1  0:34.93 34:07.59 
-            5                                        0.0  0:19.56 28:44.15 
-            6                                        3.4  0:18.73 28:17.89 
-            7                                        0.0  0:20.47 34:42.51 
-            8                                       39.5  0:15.60 28:48.57 
-            9                                        0.0  0:04.49 10:24.12 
-           10                                       12.8  0:08.84 19:34.45 
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-08
-
-    * braunr hunting the exec leak
-    <braunr> and i think i found it
-    <braunr> yes :>
-    <braunr> testing a bit more and committing the fix later tonight
-    <braunr> pinotree: i've been building glibc for 40 mins and exec is still
-      consuming around 1m memory
-    <pinotree> wow nice
-    <pinotree> i've been noticing exec leaking quite some time ago, then forgot
-      to pay more attention to that
-    <braunr> it's been more annoying since darnassus provides web access to
-      cgis
-    <braunr> automated tools make requests every seconds
-    <braunr> the leak occurred when starting a shell script or using system()
-    <braunr> youpi: not sure you saw it, i fixed the exec leak
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-10
-
-    <gg0> braunr: http://postimg.org/image/jd764wfpp/
-    <braunr> exec 797M
-    <braunr> this should be fixed with the release of the next hurd packages
-- 
2.32.0