windows mem leak
rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm
Sun Jan 9 15:49:35 EST 2005
Peter Hansen wrote:
> Roel Schroeven wrote:
>>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>> How have
>>>> you proven that it is not *that* program which is at fault?)
>> It would surprise me: even if it consumes much CPU-time, memory and
>> other resources, each instances returns all resources when it exits.
> I agree with that statement, but you assume that the program *is*
> exiting. And your initial analysis with "fake_nmap" suggests
> that, at least to the extent of having leftover cmd.exe's kicking
> around, maybe it is not.
I see. The number of cmd.exe's running was not *that* big though: about
5-10 I would say. And their PID's kept changing.
I took a look with Process Explorer from sysinternals, which shows the
processes as a tree instead of a simple list. Apparently each fake_nmap
is a child of a cmd.exe, meaning that os.popen indead uses the shell to
run processes. I wouldn't be surprise if cmd.exe would be the culprit here.
"Codito ergo sum"
More information about the Python-list