Opened 6 years ago
Last modified 4 years ago
#18905 needs_work defect
fix more leaks found in #18897
Reported by:  dimpase  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.0 
Component:  memleak  Keywords:  
Cc:  jmantysalo  Merged in:  
Authors:  Simon King  Reviewers:  
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  public/18905 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  e952388409f97f3e40b9e4d56ab3e42b6cb13b88 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
In #18897 one leak is fixed, but there are more left, see comments 27 and later:
sage: L = [1,1,0,1,0,1,2,1,1,0,0,1,2,0,0,1,1,0,2,0,0,0,0,0,1] sage: def test(L, dim): ....: import gc ....: from collections import Counter ....: gc.collect() ....: pre={id(c) for c in gc.get_objects()} ....: m = matrix(dim, L) ....: for p in range(2,102): ....: m.change_ring(GF(nth_prime(p))).eigenvalues() ....: gc.collect() ....: post=Counter(type(o) for o in gc.get_objects() if id(o) not in pre) ....: return [(k,v) for (k,v) in post.iteritems() if v>10] ....: sage: test(L, 5) [(<class 'sage.rings.algebraic_closure_finite_field.AlgebraicClosureFiniteField_pseudo_conway_with_category'>, 100), ... (<class 'sage.rings.homset.RingHomset_quo_ring_with_category'>, 100), ... (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct'>, 100), (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.Int_to_IntegerMod'>, 200), ... (<class 'sage.rings.homset.RingHomset_generic_with_category'>, 100), ...]
Attachments (4)
Change History (49)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #18897
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 followups: ↓ 3 ↓ 5 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to pbruin:
This is probably because the
algebraic_closure()
method of finite fields is cached (see #14990), creating circular references between finite fields and their algebraic closures.
Circular references shouldn't be problematic, unless one of the objects involved has a __del__
method. However:
sage: K = GF(5) sage: hasattr(K, '__del__') False sage: hasattr(K.algebraic_closure(), '__del__') False
And indeed:
sage: while 1: ....: print get_memory_usage() ....: for p in range(2, 102): ....: A = GF(nth_prime(p)).algebraic_closure() ....: <constant amount of memory>
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
Oops, that's a bad test. Of course it had a constant memory consumption even if memory could not be freed. Sorry.
sage: import gc sage: _ = gc.collect() sage: while 1: ....: print gc.collect() ....: for p in range(2, 102): ....: A = GF(nth_prime(p)).algebraic_closure() ....: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
That's a leak.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; followups: ↓ 7 ↓ 8 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to pbruin:
This is probably because the
algebraic_closure()
method of finite fields is cached (see #14990), creating circular references between finite fields and their algebraic closures. The following simpler code exhibits a similar memory leak:import gc from collections import Counter gc.collect() pre = {id(c) for c in gc.get_objects()} for p in prime_range(100): GF(p).algebraic_closure() gc.collect() post = Counter(type(o) for o in gc.get_objects() if id(o) not in pre) print([(k,v) for (k,v) in post.iteritems() if v>10])
Like noticed in #18897, when this code is runned the first time, there are many stuff left. But the second time, the list is empty.
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
And the leak indeed only occurs if we store the algebraic closure. In a freshly started session (the previous result has also been in a freshly started session):
sage: _ = gc.collect() sage: while 1: ....: print gc.collect() ....: for p in range(2, 102): ....: A = GF(nth_prime(p)) ....: 0 8396 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969 7969
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 6 years ago by
Like noticed in #18897, when this code is runned the first time, there are many stuff left. But the second time, the list is empty.
...ok, but that's the same thing for the bug presented in the description of the ticket. Sorry.
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to slabbe:
Like noticed in #18897, when this code is runned the first time, there are many stuff left. But the second time, the list is empty.
That's just because there is only one base ring. Do the same while iterating over GF(p)
, and you'll see how things accumulate.
At #18897, a binary tree was duely deallocated, however it was forgotten to dereference the root node. But here, we have objects that could be deallocated, but aren't. It is a totally different kind of leak.
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
attachment:test.png results from the following code:
sage: import objgraph, gc sage: K = GF(31) sage: n = id(K) sage: A = K.algebraic_closure() sage: del A,K sage: gc.collect() 0 sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if id(c)==n] sage: objgraph.show_backrefs(L[0],filename="/home/king/Sage/work/memleak/test.png") Graph written to /tmp/objgraphr5RhSM.dot (21 nodes) Image generated as /home/king/Sage/work/memleak/test.png
Apparently, the references that prevent deallocation come from sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct
.
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
It seems that there is a NativeIntStruct created for each finite field. If the NativeIntStruct is small enough, then it has a (multiplication?) table, which holds references to all elements of the finite field. And they have, of course, references to their parent. But what is referencing the NativeIntStruct?
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
It seems that the reference somehow comes from constructing the algebraic closure, as we have
sage: K = GF(31) sage: del K sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if isinstance(c, sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct) and len(c._get_table())==31] sage: len(L) 0
So, the NativeIntStruct can be garbage collected when we do not construct the algebraic closure.
How can one find a reference chain from the algebraic closure to the NativeIntStruct?
comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by
attachment:test2.png shows the result of
sage: K = GF(31) sage: A = K.algebraic_closure() sage: del A,K sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if isinstance(c, sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct) and len(c._get_table())==31] sage: filter = lambda x: (x is not L) and (not isinstance(x, sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.IntegerMod_int)) sage: objgraph.show_backrefs(L[0],filter=filter,filename="/home/king/Sage/work/memleak/test2.png") Graph written to /tmp/objgraph4qP1R3.dot (16 nodes) Image generated as /home/king/Sage/work/memleak/test2.png
The picture somehow looks familiar: There is a coerce map involved, namely !Int_to_IntegerMod. Coerce maps are supposed to have a weak reference to the domain and a strong reference to the codomain. Since the domain of !Int_to_IntegerMod presumably is the ring of integers and can't be deallocated anyway, a strong reference to the codomain means trouble...
comment:13 Changed 6 years ago by
I was also playing with objgraph...
def test(L, dim): import objgraph import gc from collections import Counter gc.collect() pre={id(c) for c in gc.get_objects()} m = matrix(dim, L) for p in range(2,102): m.change_ring(GF(nth_prime(p))).eigenvalues() gc.collect() O = gc.get_objects() post=Counter(type(o) for o in O if id(o) not in pre) T = [k for (k,v) in post.iteritems() if v==100] D = dict((type(o),o) for o in O if type(o) in T) for i,v in enumerate(sorted(D.values())): print v objgraph.show_backrefs(v,filename="test_{}.png".format(i)) print ""
I get :
sage: L = [1,1,0,1,0,1,2,1,1,0,0,1,2,0,0,1,1,0,2,0,0,0,0,0,1] sage: test(L, 5) Principal ideal (547) of Integer Ring Graph written to /tmp/objgraphe803N8.dot (20 nodes) Image generated as test_0.png  Set of Homomorphisms from Integer Ring to Finite Field of size 181 Graph written to /tmp/objgraphI_uL5V.dot (12 nodes) Image generated as test_1.png  <class 'sage.rings.finite_rings.conway_polynomials.PseudoConwayLattice'> Graph written to /tmp/objgraphoMuwMY.dot (13 nodes) Image generated as test_2.png  Algebraic closure of Finite Field of size 181 Graph written to /tmp/objgraphM_9gmt.dot (14 nodes) Image generated as test_3.png  Finite Field of size 547 Graph written to /tmp/objgraphZostIO.dot (25 nodes) Image generated as test_4.png  Set of Homomorphisms from Finite Field of size 181 to Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Finite Field of size 181 Graph written to /tmp/objgraphdiDGKn.dot (12 nodes) Image generated as test_5.png  <sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct object at 0x7f366d1e3590> Graph written to /tmp/objgraphJxmEbJ.dot (30 nodes) Image generated as test_6.png 
I will attach test_3.png for the algebraic closure right now.
comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by
Let me try to recall why the current "weakreferencing coerce maps" are made as they are, to understand why we have a strong reference chain to Int_to_IntegerMod
.
 We have a backtracking algorithm to find coerce maps by transitivity of "registered" coerce maps. Hence, registered coerce maps need to be stored in the codomain.
 Since the maps are stored in a container that is stored as an attribute of the codomain, there is a strong reference chain from the codomain to the coerce map.
 A strong reference to the codomain should not prevent the domain from garbage collection. Hence, IN COERCION, we use a weak reference from the map to the domain, and we cut the reference from the map to its parent.
 A strong reference to the domain should not prevent the codomain from garbage collection. That's what seems to fail in the current example.
What I do not understand: Why is that more than a strong reference CYCLE (which would not prevent garbage collection) from the codomain to the map and back?
comment:15 Changed 6 years ago by
Aha. The coercion model caches the coerce maps, too. So, it isn't the codomain only that holds a cache.
The coercion model is of course a permanent object. It references a TripleDict
to store the coercion maps. The coercion map references the codomain. Hence, if the domain is strongly referenced from somewhere, then the coerce map and thus the codomain can not be garbage collected.
Can we perhaps make it so that the cache in the coercion model only keeps a WEAK reference to the coerce map? I worry about performance, though, since getting the referenced object from a weak reference is a bit costly.
Do we need to worry about premature collection of coerce map? If I understand correctly, the cache in the coercion model is mainly for performance, as the map is cached as an attribute of the codomain anyway. And the codomain of any map is a parent. Hence, the cache of the coercion model actually is redundant.
So, perhaps a better idea is to completely get rid of the coercion model cache, as the coercion model can use the codomain's cache. I'll try that.
comment:16 Changed 6 years ago by
No, the coercion model's cache is needed. It is relevant for pushouts. There, we have no codomain, as it first needs to be constructed.
comment:17 Changed 6 years ago by
Perhaps my diagnosis was wrong: It is not relevant for pushouts, but we want to cache the ABSENCE of a coercion from a parent to, say, int
. So, if the codomain happens to be a parent then we can use its cache; otherwise there is no problem to use the coercion model's cache since int
and friends will never be garbage collected anyway.
So, better not use weak references to coercion maps...
comment:18 Changed 6 years ago by
It seems that #14058 is relevant  and perhaps it fixes our problem (except that it has no branch).
comment:19 Changed 6 years ago by
I am afraid that #14058 (which now has a branch) does not suffice to fix the problem: GF(31) still can't be collected after creating its algebraic closure. However, the coercion model is not mentioned any longer. Instead, the reference goes via a weak value dictionary, which seems to be the polynomial ring cache.
My guess:
 There is some polynomial ring P over the base ring GF(31) that was constructed when creating the algebraic closure of GF(31).
 There is only a weak reference to P from the polynomial ring cache (it is weak value dictionary). However, for a different reason there is a strong reference to P.
 Hence, the entry for P in the weak value dictionary can not be freed. By consequence, the reference to the KEY of this entry, which is a STRONG reference to GF(31), can not be freed.
 Thus, GF(31) can not be deallocated.
The question is: How is there a strong reference to P? Perhaps there is a strong reference from GF(31) to P? Maybe via caching the algebraic closure, which references an element of P? This would be enough to keep P alive.
comment:20 Changed 6 years ago by
 Cc jmantysalo added
comment:21 Changed 6 years ago by
I tried to find a backref chain as follows:
sage: import objgraph, gc, __main__ sage: K = GF(31) sage: A = K.algebraic_closure() sage: nK = id(K) sage: del A,K sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if id(c) == nK] sage: objgraph.find_backref_chain(L[0], lambda x: x in __main__.__dict__.values(), extra_ignore=(id(L),))
but it crashes with a segfault. Any idea why it fails?
comment:22 Changed 6 years ago by
And this one
sage: import objgraph, gc sage: cm = sage.structure.element.get_coercion_model() sage: K = GF(31) sage: A = K.algebraic_closure() sage: nK = id(K) sage: del A,K sage: gc.collect() 0 sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if id(c) == nK] sage: objgraph.find_backref_chain(L[0], lambda x: x is cm, extra_ignore=(id(L),))
doesn't finish after several minutes.
comment:23 followup: ↓ 24 Changed 6 years ago by
I get pretty good plots from
objgraph.show_backrefs(L,filename='plot.png',max_depth=5)
It seems a global link exists here:
sage: [a for a in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring_constructor.__dict__['_cache'].keys() if id(a[0]) == id(L[0])] [(Finite Field of size 31, ('x',), False, None), (Finite Field of size 31, ('x',), False, 'FLINT')]
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; followup: ↓ 26 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
I get pretty good plots from
objgraph.show_backrefs(L,filename='plot.png',max_depth=5)
Ahm, L?? That's a list.
It seems a global link exists here:
sage: [a for a in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring_constructor.__dict__['_cache'].keys() if id(a[0]) == id(L[0])] [(Finite Field of size 31, ('x',), False, None), (Finite Field of size 31, ('x',), False, 'FLINT')]
Of course. As long as P=GF(31)['x']
lives, its base ring will live, too. The question is why the polynomial ring can't be collected. So, perhaps it would be better to try and find a chain for the polynomial ring instead.
comment:25 Changed 6 years ago by
attachment:test_P_14058.png is interesting. It seems that the reference chain to the polynomial ring is via TRACEBACKS! The question then arises: Why are the tracebacks not garbage collected?
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; followup: ↓ 28 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Of course. As long as
P=GF(31)['x']
lives, its base ring will live, too. The question is why the polynomial ring can't be collected. So, perhaps it would be better to try and find a chain for the polynomial ring instead.
OK, the finite field caches under algebraic_closure
in its dict a CachedMethodCaller
that references a PseudoConwayLattice
object that in its __dict__
has a ring that is the polynomial ring. That's a reference chain from the finite field to the polynomial ring, preventing the polynomial ring from being deallocated.
comment:27 Changed 6 years ago by
Oops. I see that the chain goes via objgraph. So, I guess the new attachment is worthless.
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 26 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
OK, the finite field caches under
algebraic_closure
in its dict aCachedMethodCaller
that references aPseudoConwayLattice
object that in its__dict__
has a ring that is the polynomial ring. That's a reference chain from the finite field to the polynomial ring, preventing the polynomial ring from being deallocated.
And, by comment:19, it prevents the base ring from collection, because it is not simply a cyclic reference, but a strong reference from a weak value dictionary to one of its keys.
comment:29 followup: ↓ 30 Changed 6 years ago by
Why does the CachedMethodCaller reference a PseudoConwayLattice? Shouldn't it "only" reference the return value?
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Why does the CachedMethodCaller reference a PseudoConwayLattice? Shouldn't it "only" reference the return value?
I see. The algebraic closure itself references the PseudoConwayLattice.
Hm. At some point we should use a weak reference. Maybe right here.
comment:31 Changed 6 years ago by
The lattice that is stored in the algebraic closure is either passed as an argument to the init method, or is constructed during init:
def __init__(self, base_ring, name, category=None, lattice=None, use_database=True): if not (is_FiniteField(base_ring) and base_ring.is_prime_field()): raise NotImplementedError('algebraic closures of finite fields are only implemented for prime fields') from sage.rings.finite_rings.conway_polynomials import PseudoConwayLattice p = base_ring.characteristic() if lattice is None: lattice = PseudoConwayLattice(p, use_database) elif not isinstance(lattice, PseudoConwayLattice) or lattice.p != p: raise TypeError('lattice must be a pseudoConway lattice with characteristic %s' % p) self._pseudo_conway_lattice = lattice AlgebraicClosureFiniteField_generic.__init__(self, base_ring, name, category)
That's a dilemma. If "lattice" is not passed as an argument, it is no problem to weakly reference it, as it can be reconstructed, should it be garbage collected. But otherwise? Hm.
comment:32 Changed 6 years ago by
I think I know a potential solution.
The problem, by the above analysis: The polynomial ring cache is a weak value dictionary. Generally, a strong reference chain from key to value will prevent garbage collection of the keyvalue pair.
I suggest to remove the "global" polynomial ring cache. Instead, I suggest that the polynomial ring constructor uses a weak value dictionary that is stored as an attribute of the base ring (e.g., in self.__cached_methods
, which is available for all parents).
The weakly referenced values are polynomial rings. The keys are the list of variable names and information on term order and implementationso, strong references to them shouldn't be problematic.
In that model, a strong reference chain from the base ring to the polynomial ring would NOT prevent garbage collection, since in the worst case it is a reference cycle (base ring <> polynomial ring).
comment:33 Changed 6 years ago by
Hooray! With that change, I get
sage: import objgraph, gc sage: K = GF(31) sage: A = K.algebraic_closure() sage: n = id(K) sage: del A,K sage: gc.collect() 186 sage: L = [c for c in gc.get_objects() if id(c) == n] sage: L []
comment:34 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch set to u/SimonKing/memleak_for_integer_mod_rel_14058
comment:35 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit set to 3ada19d1acf58d1d085c1908b3058de8377901a4
 Dependencies changed from #18897 to #18897, #14058
 Status changed from new to needs_review
Last 10 new commits:
6d34077  Simplify code for deallocation of binary trees

80ce876  Further simplification

ac68d9b  Remove strong references to parents used in binary operations in the coercion model.

e153d08  #14058: Add doctest

b9141ee  Merge branch 'ticket/14058' into develop

90ed181  Trivial fix for a coercion doctest

64b572c  refcount libsingular rings used in plural

9793dbc  Make one test more stable

219fbf4  Merge branch 't/14058/weakly_reference_binary_operation_codomains' into t/18905/memleak_for_integer_mod_rel_14058

3ada19d  Replace the global polynomial ring cache by a cache in the base ring

comment:36 Changed 6 years ago by
To my slight surprise, replacing the global polynomial ring cache by a local cache did not only solve the issue tracked here, but it did not introduce a new problem: With the attached branch, all tests should pass.
I have reviewed most part of #14058, but I think someone should have a look at my additions (review patch) there and finish the review.
comment:37 followup: ↓ 38 Changed 6 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
From the patchbot
sage t long src/sage/structure/coerce.pyx ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/structure/coerce.pyx", line 1307, in sage.structure.coerce.CoercionModel_cache_maps.coercion_maps Failed example: print N2N0 Expected: 0 Got: 1
Is it what we should get?
comment:38 in reply to: ↑ 37 ; followup: ↓ 39 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vdelecroix:
From the patchbot ... Is it what we should get?
Note that the same error appears at #14058, even though the commits from here are not part of #14058, if I see that correctly.
Could someone verify if it is really the case that tests pass with "develop", but fail with the branch from here (merged in "develop" of course)? I currently do not have the bandwidth.
comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 38 ; followup: ↓ 40 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to vdelecroix: Could someone verify if it is really the case that tests pass with "develop", but fail with the branch from here (merged in "develop" of course)? I currently do not have the bandwidth.
It does fail, see #14058 comment 62.
comment:40 in reply to: ↑ 39 ; followup: ↓ 41 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vdelecroix:
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to vdelecroix: Could someone verify if it is really the case that tests pass with "develop", but fail with the branch from here (merged in "develop" of course)? I currently do not have the bandwidth.
It does fail, see #14058 comment 62.
Please be clearer. It fails in what setting? Does it only fail with #14058? Does it also fail with develop? Does it also fail with the branch from here?
If it fails both here and at #14058, but not with develop, then I reckon both branches trigger a memory leak that was introduced elsewhere.
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:42 Changed 6 years ago by
bump...
comment:43 followup: ↓ 44 Changed 6 years ago by
I think the description of the ticket should be updated because I don't see those instances with multiple of one hundred anymore on sage6.9.rc0. (Exactly what leaks are fixed in this ticket?)
Is the following line needed?
+from sage.structure.parent import Parent
Other than that, I verified that the branches indeed fixes the problem mentioned at comment 33. When the two thing above are fixed, to me, it will be a positive review.
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 43 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to slabbe:
because I don't see those instances with multiple of one hundred anymore on sage6.9.rc0.
Sorry, I am retracting here as I do see them on sage6.9.rc0:
sage: L = [1,1,0,1,0,1,2,1,1,0,0,1,2,0,0,1,1,0,2,0,0,0,0,0,1] sage: %cpaste Pasting code; enter '' alone on the line to stop or use CtrlD. :sage: def test_mod_100(L, dim): :....: import gc :....: from collections import Counter :....: gc.collect() :....: pre={id(c) for c in gc.get_objects()} :....: m = matrix(dim, L) :....: for p in range(2,102): :....: m.change_ring(GF(nth_prime(p))).eigenvalues() :....: gc.collect() :....: post=Counter(type(o) for o in gc.get_objects() if id(o) not in pre) :....: return [(k,v) for (k,v) in post.iteritems() if v%100==0] : sage: test_mod_100(L, 5) [(<class 'sage.rings.algebraic_closure_finite_field.AlgebraicClosureFiniteField_pseudo_conway_with_category'>, 100), (<class 'sage.rings.homset.RingHomset_generic_with_category'>, 100), (<class 'sage.rings.finite_rings.conway_polynomials.PseudoConwayLattice'>, 100), (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.Int_to_IntegerMod'>, 200), (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.integer_mod.NativeIntStruct'>, 100), (<class 'sage.rings.finite_rings.finite_field_prime_modn.FiniteField_prime_modn_with_category'>, 100), (<type 'sage.categories.map.FormalCompositeMap'>, 200), (<type 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_element.PolynomialBaseringInjection'>, 200), (<class 'sage.rings.ideal.Ideal_pid'>, 100), (<class 'sage.rings.homset.RingHomset_quo_ring_with_category'>, 100)]
and they do disappear with this ticket on top on sage6.9.rc0:
sage: test_mod_100(L, 5) []
That being said, I do see some stuff on the second, third, fourth execution of test(L, 5)
:
sage: test(L, 5) [(<type 'tuple'>, 5198), (<class 'sage.rings.algebraic_closure_finite_field.AlgebraicClosureFiniteField_pseudo_conway_with_category.element_class'>, 101), (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.element_givaro.FiniteField_givaroElement'>, 194), (<type 'sage.rings.finite_rings.element_pari_ffelt.FiniteFieldElement_pari_ffelt'>, 1104), (<type 'dict'>, 102)]
Is this problematic?
comment:45 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/SimonKing/memleak_for_integer_mod_rel_14058 to public/18905
 Commit changed from 3ada19d1acf58d1d085c1908b3058de8377901a4 to e952388409f97f3e40b9e4d56ab3e42b6cb13b88
 Dependencies #18897, #14058 deleted
 Milestone changed from sage6.8 to sage8.0
New commits:
e952388  Merge branch 'u/SimonKing/memleak_for_integer_mod_rel_14058' in 8.0.b8

This is probably because the
algebraic_closure()
method of finite fields is cached (see #14990), creating circular references between finite fields and their algebraic closures. The following simpler code exhibits a similar memory leak: