This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author ghazel
Date 2006-09-26.06:58:18
SpamBayes Score
Marked as misclassified
Attached is a file which demonstrates an oddity about 
traceback objects and the gc.

The observed behaviour is that when the tuple from 
sys.exc_info() is stored on an object which is inside 
the local scope, the object, thus exc_info tuple, are 
not collected even when both leave scope.

If you run the test with "s.e = sys.exc_info()" 
commented out, the observed memory footprint of the 
process quickly approaches and sits at 5,677,056 
bytes. Totally reasonable.

If you uncomment that line, the memory footprint 
climbs to 283,316,224 bytes quite rapidly. That's a 
two order of magnitude difference!

If you uncomment the "gc.collect()" line, the process 
still hits 148,910,080 bytes.

This was observed in production code, where exc_info 
tuples are saved for re-raising later to get the stack-
appending behaviour tracebacks and 'raise' perform. 
The example includes a large array to simulate 
application state. I assume this is bad behaviour 
occurring because the traceback object holds frames, 
and those frames hold a reference to the local 
objects, thus the exc_info tuple itself, thus causing 
a circular reference which involves the entire stack.
Either the gc needs to be improved to prevent this 
from growing so wildly, or the traceback objects need 
to (optionally?) hold frames which do not have 
references or have weak references instead.
Date User Action Args
2007-08-23 14:43:01adminlinkissue1565525 messages
2007-08-23 14:43:01admincreate