> Possibly. However, the amount of memory in use is stupid :
> I start 50 threads, and the memory usage goes up to 411436 VSZ/840 RSS.
> Then I stop those threads, and the usage stays there. I start another 50
> threads, and the usage goes up to 821036 VSZ/1040 RSS. So, it's neither
> freeing the resources correctly nor reusing them :-/
> I've found several other people seeing the same VSZ issue with pthreads,
> spread over a long time, but no solution as yet.
You need a seperate pthread_t per thread.

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B82D43C41
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:51:52 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:51:52 +0100 (IST)
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7K9i2Z00504 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:44:02 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25975; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:43:09 +0100
from claymore.diva.ie (diva.ie [195.218.115.17] (may be forged))
    by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25943 for
    <ilug@linux.ie>; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:43:03 +0100
from cunniffe.net (p1017.as1.exs.dublin.eircom.net
    [159.134.227.249]) by claymore.diva.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
    KAA15240 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:43:01 +0100
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Tue Aug 20 11:52:53 2002

>> Possibly. However, the amount of memory in use is stupid :
>> I start 50 threads, and the memory usage goes up to 411436 VSZ/840 RSS.
>> Then I stop those threads, and the usage stays there. I start another 50
>> threads, and the usage goes up to 821036 VSZ/1040 RSS. So, it's neither
>> freeing the resources correctly nor reusing them :-/
>> I've found several other people seeing the same VSZ issue with pthreads,
>> spread over a long time, but no solution as yet.
> You need a seperate pthread_t per thread.
I've tested it with and without separate pthread_t's, and the problem is