Sometimes, each run of test_functools leaks exactly 1 memory block, even when the whole test is "re-run in verbose mode". Sometimes, it doesn't leak.

https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders/80/builds/550

test_functools leaked [1, 1, 1] memory blocks, sum=3
Re-running test 'test_functools' in verbose mode
test_functools leaked [1, 1, 1] memory blocks, sum=3

Maybe the problem comes from 

Example on Linux:

$ ./python -m test -F -r -j1 -R 3:3 test_functools  
Using random seed 3891892
Run tests in parallel using 1 child processes
0:00:01 load avg: 2.38 [  1] test_functools passed
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......
(...)
0:00:06 load avg: 2.27 [  6] test_functools passed
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......
0:00:07 load avg: 2.27 [  7/1] test_functools failed
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......
test_functools leaked [1, 2, 1] memory blocks, sum=4
0:00:08 load avg: 2.27 [  8/1] test_functools passed
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......

== Tests result: FAILURE ==

7 tests OK.

1 test failed:
    test_functools

Total duration: 8 sec 333 ms
Tests result: FAILURE

Current bisection progress: I'm able to reproduce a failure with attached test_functools.py (211 lines) using:

./python -m test -F -j5 -R 3:3 test_functools  

It takes between 4 and 200 runs to reproduce the failure, I don't understand what triggers the bug.

I failed to identify if the bug is more likely when the system is idle or when the system is busy. It looks purely random.

Some progress.

I'm now able to reproduce the issue with attached test_functools2.py (103 lines, a single test method):

$ cp (...)test_functools2.py Lib/test/
$ ./configure -C --with-pydebug CFLAGS=-O0
$ make
$ ./python -m test -F -j5 -R 3:3 test_functools2
(...)
0:00:02 load avg: 0.95 [ 19/1] test_functools failed
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......
test_functools leaked [1, 1, 1] memory blocks, sum=3
(...)
Tests result: FAILURE

I disabled the C accelerator _functools.

I'm now trying to disable the C accelerator of abc, but I had a small issue: bpo-36565.

The issue comes maybe from the complex code in Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py to handle the ABC cache:

    abcs = {}
    for abc in [getattr(collections.abc, a) for a in collections.abc.__all__]:
        if not isabstract(abc):
            continue
        for obj in abc.__subclasses__() + [abc]:
            abcs[obj] = _get_dump(obj)[0]

...

    # clear type cache
    sys._clear_type_cache()

    # Clear ABC registries, restoring previously saved ABC registries.
    abs_classes = [getattr(collections.abc, a) for a in collections.abc.__all__]
    abs_classes = filter(isabstract, abs_classes)
    for abc in abs_classes:
        for obj in abc.__subclasses__() + [abc]:
            for ref in abcs.get(obj, set()):
                if ref() is not None:
                    obj.register(ref())
            obj._abc_caches_clear()

    clear_caches()

This issue isn't a real memory leak: if I use -R 3:10 instead of -R 3:3, the test doesn't fail anymore.

But the issue is still annoying since it makes Refleaks buildbot workers fail randomly :-/

This issue remembers me the unstable multiprocessing tests:

* bpo-33735: test_multiprocessing_spawn leaked [1, 2, 1] memory blocks on AMD64 Windows8.1 Refleaks 3.7
* bpo-33984: test_multiprocessing_forkserver leaked [1, 2, 1] memory blocks on x86 Gentoo Refleaks 3.x



Patch to always display memory allocations differences:

diff --git a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
index d68ea63b5b..997be819fa 100644
--- a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
+++ b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
@@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ def dash_R(the_module, test, indirect_test, huntrleaks):
                 print(msg, file=refrep)
                 refrep.flush()
             failed = True
+    if not failed:
+        print(alloc_deltas[nwarmup:])
     return failed
 

Truncated output with the patch:

vstinner@apu$ ./python -m test -F -r -j1 -R 3:10 test_functools
Using random seed 4308771
Run tests in parallel using 1 child processes
0:00:04 load avg: 0.91 [  1] test_functools passed
[0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:00:13 load avg: 0.92 [  3] test_functools passed
[2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:00:17 load avg: 0.93 [  4] test_functools passed
[0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:00:21 load avg: 0.93 [  5] test_functools passed
[0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:00:26 load avg: 0.93 [  6] test_functools passed
[0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:00:34 load avg: 0.87 [  8] test_functools passed
[0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:01:06 load avg: 1.15 [ 15] test_functools passed
[0, 1, 0, 2, 0, -1, 1, 0, 0, 0]
...
0:01:10 load avg: 1.46 [ 16] test_functools passed
[0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 1]
...

The maximum sum() of these list is around 5 on 10 runs: not every run leaks a memory block. It looks more like a internal cache which is "unstable" if you look at the number of allocated memory blocks.

I wrote PR 12743 to modify _abc: use weakref.WeakSet rather than using directly a set of weak references. With this PR, calling _get_dump() should clear all broken weak references. I'm not sure if it's really useful for this specific issue, since dash_R_cleanup() calls obj._abc_caches_clear() on all abstract base classes (ABC): all caches must be removed before reading the total number of allocated memory blocks (sys.getallocatedblocks()).

_abc was written for optimization. Your PR makes it using slower Python code. Could you please test how much this hits the performance of abc?

If I modify libregrtest with the following patch:

diff --git a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
index 0bb8a0a2bf..f0225a9768 100644
--- a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
+++ b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ def dash_R(ns, the_module, test_name, test_func):
     failed = False
     for deltas, item_name, checker in [
         (rc_deltas, 'references', check_rc_deltas),
-        (alloc_deltas, 'memory blocks', check_rc_deltas),
+        (alloc_deltas, 'memory blocks', check_fd_deltas),
         (fd_deltas, 'file descriptors', check_fd_deltas)
     ]:
         # ignore warmup runs

And I add the following file Lib/test/test_noop.py:

import unittest

class NoopTests(unittest.TestCase):
    def test_noop(self):
        pass

regrtest detects a "leak":

$ ./python -m test -R 3:3 test_noop
Run tests sequentially
0:00:00 load avg: 0.55 [1/1] test_noop
beginning 6 repetitions
123456
......
test_noop leaked [0, 1, 0] memory blocks, sum=1
test_noop failed

== Tests result: FAILURE ==

1 test failed:
    test_noop

Total duration: 113 ms
Tests result: FAILURE


The issue comes from this look in Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py:

    for i in range(repcount):
        indirect_test()
        alloc_after, rc_after, fd_after = dash_R_cleanup(fs, ps, pic, zdc,
                                                         abcs)
        print('.', end='', file=sys.stderr, flush=True)
        if i >= nwarmup:
            rc_deltas[i] = get_pooled_int(rc_after - rc_before)
            alloc_deltas[i] = get_pooled_int(alloc_after - alloc_before)
            fd_deltas[i] = get_pooled_int(fd_after - fd_before)
        alloc_before = alloc_after
        rc_before = rc_after
        fd_before = fd_after

Because of "if i >= nwarmup:", get_pooled_int() isn't call during "warmup", whereas the purpose of the warmup is to warmup *everything*.

Maybe get_pooled_int() allocates one frame object and keeps it alive in its "zombi frame". Maybe something else is allocated and kept alive.

Anything, removing "if i >= nwarmup:" to always compute deltas fix this specific issue.

Attached PR 12744 fix this bug.

New changeset 5aaac94eeb44697e92b0951385cd557bc27e0f6a by Victor Stinner in branch 'master':
bpo-36560: Fix reference leak hunting in regrtest (GH-12744)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/5aaac94eeb44697e92b0951385cd557bc27e0f6a

New changeset 9c14061a2c2df9a9b84d0aab190a50c24a0d52f4 by Victor Stinner in branch '2.7':
bpo-36560: Fix reference leak hunting in regrtest (GH-12744) (GH-12745)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/9c14061a2c2df9a9b84d0aab190a50c24a0d52f4

New changeset bb4447897a5f141eecf42987a1191a3330c5d7ed by Victor Stinner in branch 'master':
bpo-36560: regrtest: don't collect the GC twice (GH-12747)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/bb4447897a5f141eecf42987a1191a3330c5d7ed

> _abc was written for optimization. Your PR makes it using slower Python code. Could you please test how much this hits the performance of abc?

I mostly wrote PR 12743 to debug this issue. Please see the discussion directly on the PR ;-)

New changeset 86f0354fcb815312295b923c55e39364d85d0388 by Victor Stinner in branch '3.7':
[3.7] bpo-36560: regrtest: don't collect the GC twice (GH-12747) (GH-12749)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/86f0354fcb815312295b923c55e39364d85d0388

Patch making check on memory block leaks stricter:

diff --git a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
index 235d6bfd3a..dfadabdef6 100644
--- a/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
+++ b/Lib/test/libregrtest/refleak.py
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ def dash_R(ns, the_module, test_name, test_func):
     failed = False
     for deltas, item_name, checker in [
         (rc_deltas, 'references', check_rc_deltas),
-        (alloc_deltas, 'memory blocks', check_rc_deltas),
+        (alloc_deltas, 'memory blocks', check_fd_deltas),
         (fd_deltas, 'file descriptors', check_fd_deltas)
     ]:
         # ignore warmup runs


Using this patch, at least the following tests fail:

* test_asyncio
* test_code
* test_collections
* test_contextlib
* test_contextlib_async
* test_ctypes
* test_functools
* test_multiprocessing_forkserver
* test_multiprocessing_spawn
* test_regrtest
* test_statistics
* test_typing
* test_xml_etree_c

I didn't analyze why yet. I guess that they are not real memory leaks, but more minor issue in the code checking for memory leaks. Sadly, it seems like such small glitch can cause a whole Refleak buildbot worker to fail :-(

Another example:

AMD64 Fedora Rawhide Refleaks 3.6
https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders/193/builds/5
test_contextlib leaked [8, 1, 1] memory blocks, sum=10

I cannot reproduce the issue on my ("idle") laptop. It sounds like a random failure (race condition).