From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 14:58:28 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 765ECD86 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:58:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D45F8FC0A for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:58:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TTDGx-0003IN-Nd for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:58:31 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:58:31 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:58:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:58:10 +0100 Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <20121030134614.1a42f0e3@fabiankeil.de> <1351608465.1120.30.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0C557084087D2E1B53E710D3" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120812 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <1351608465.1120.30.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 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 14:58:28 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0C557084087D2E1B53E710D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 30/10/2012 15:47, Ian Lepore wrote: > 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= =20 >>> written under 6.4 amd64 - when re-compiled under 9.0-stable amd64 tak= es >>> 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 >=20 > 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). It is turned on by default on -stable, by a commit from release engineers= =2E --------------enig0C557084087D2E1B53E710D3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCP6wIACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSyT0QCfRZ+5AcJeSrKXtHv+VvmfsRst H0YAn0VCNK7CCNHVPVe9TIl4AP9wtzkV =TXsp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0C557084087D2E1B53E710D3--