from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5C916F20
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 10:57:13 +0100 (IST)
from n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com
    [66.218.66.77]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id
    g983tCK31950 for <zzzz@example.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 04:55:12 +0100
From sentto-2242572-56001-1034049352-zzzz=example.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com  Tue Oct  8 10:58:30 2002

No, hits=-17.1 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NOSPAM_INC,RCVD_IN_RFCI,
	      REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_SPARSE,T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50
	version=2.50-cvs

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A7F43C38
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:51:36 -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 11:51:36 +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 g7JLPZZ09998 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:25:35 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29957; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:24:29 +0100
from hibernia.jakma.org (hibernia.clubi.ie [212.17.32.129]) by
    lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29921 for <ilug@linux.ie>;
    Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:24:15 +0100
from fogarty.jakma.org (fogarty.jakma.org [192.168.0.4]) by
    hibernia.jakma.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7JLWCD01993;
    Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:32:12 +0100
from localhost (paul@localhost) by fogarty.jakma.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7JLWAX14622; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:32:10
    +0100
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Tue Aug 20 11:51:58 2002

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Vincent Cunniffe wrote:
> The process list initially shows a single main process :
> When the client runs, connects, and sleeps for 5 seconds :
> When the client exits, and the thread should finish, it doesn't :
> This second thread never goes away, but no more threads accumulate,
> and the total memory consumption rises by about 8-9MB every single
> C++ bug, linux bug, pthreads bug, coding error?
hmm... with pthreads there is always one thread which acts as a
'thread manager'. do the number of processes accumulate? or is it
just that the # of threads is == # of threads you're expecting + 1?
ie, you dont create the thread until the accept() returns. so up
until then its a normal programme (ie no thread manager). after that
you will always have +1 processes (for the thread manager).
also, the stack for further threads is allocated from the heap. (see
sigaltstack() ) possibly glibc does not brk() back the space, just
like malloc()/free() does not always release the space to the heap
again (as most programmes will allocate memory / threads again
The Official Colorado State Vegetable is now the "state legislator".