On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 08:54:53PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:16:37PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> attached patch does not seem to suffer from these errors any more.
> Shall I ask user who reported the bug If he is willing to test this new version of
the patch? IIRC he needs more then a week for a testing to be conclusive...
Yes, please. We can do the review in the meantime.
The new code looks good to me and there is definitely improvement in
memory consumption. Before the patch, after requesting 100000 netgroups
the memory usage went from ~30 to ~250MBs. After the patch, the memory
went from ~30 to ~50 MBs.
Did you take a look in your testing what is the extra 20MBs or should I?