From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 14:48:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8256D9D5 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:48:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804BD8FC17 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9UEm84F063212 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:48:08 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9UEljs7005594; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:47:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. From: Ian Lepore To: Fabian Keil In-Reply-To: <20121030134614.1a42f0e3@fabiankeil.de> References: <20121030134614.1a42f0e3@fabiankeil.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:47:45 -0600 Message-ID: <1351608465.1120.30.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Karl Pielorz X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:48:16 -0000 On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:46 +0100, Fabian Keil wrote: > Karl Pielorz wrote: > > > Can anyone think of any quick pointers as to why some code originally > > written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 takes > > up a *lot* more memory when running? > > 6.4 comes with phkmalloc while 9.0 uses jemalloc. Maybe you are > allocating memory in a way that is less space-efficiently handled by > jemalloc's default configuration. > > Fabian jemalloc is certainly the first thing that came to my mind. Does MALLOC_PRODUCTION need to be defined on a 9.0 system, or is that something that gets turned on automatically in an official release build? (I'm always working with non-release stuff so I'm not sure how that gets handled). -- Ian