Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix:Reclaim the heartbeat response message to avoid memory leakage of GettyRemoting.futures #665

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 21, 2024

Conversation

luky116
Copy link
Contributor

@luky116 luky116 commented Feb 3, 2024

What this PR does:
Reclaim the heartbeat response message to avoid memory leakage of GettyRemoting.futures

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
NONE

Special notes for your reviewer:
When sending a message, in GettyRemoting.futures, added a new records, but in dealing with a heartbeat message receipt, no call GettyRemoting.RemoveMessageFuture method, This leads to an increasing amount of data in GettyRemoting.futures, which eventually leads to oom

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
NONE


@luky116 luky116 changed the title Remove comment fix:Reclaim the heartbeat response message to avoid memory leakage of GettyRemoting.futures Feb 3, 2024
@@ -38,5 +38,9 @@ func (f *clientHeartBeatProcessor) Process(ctx context.Context, rpcMessage messa
log.Debug("received PONG from {}", ctx)
}
}
msgFuture := getty.GetGettyRemotingInstance().GetMessageFuture(rpcMessage.ID)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

use defer or better?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

正常移除就行吧

Copy link

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 7, 2024

Copy link
Contributor Author

@luky116 luky116 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTE

@Code-Fight
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@slievrly slievrly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. The optimization suggested is to handle RemoveMessageFuture in a centralized manner, rather than processing it in each type of message.

@luky116 luky116 merged commit cd8588e into apache:master Dec 21, 2024
7 checks passed
@slievrly slievrly added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Jan 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants