From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 31 14:44:25 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 45ECC880 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43088FC12 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id q9VEiG7A009566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:16 GMT Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:05 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20121031140630.GE73505@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20121030182727.48f5e649@X220.ovitrap.com> <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> <615577FED019BCA31EC4211B@Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk> <509012D3.5060705@mu.org> <20121030175138.GA73505@kib.kiev.ua> <20121031140630.GE73505@kib.kiev.ua> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein 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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:25 -0000 --On 31 October 2012 16:06 +0200 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Since you neglected to provide the verbatim output of procstat, nothing > conclusive can be said. Obviously, you can make an investigation on your > own. Sorry - when I ran it this morning the output was several hundred lines - I didn't want to post all of that to the list 99% of the lines are very similar. I can email it you off-list if having the whole lot will help? >> Then there's a bunch of 'large' blocks e.g.. >> >> PID START END PRT RES PRES REF SHD FL TP >> PATH 2010 0x801c00000 0x802800000 rw- 2869 0 4 0 >> ---- df 2010 0x802800000 0x803400000 rw- 1880 0 1 0 > > Most likely, these are malloc arenas. Ok, that's the heaviest usage. >> Then lots of 'little' blocks, >> >> 2010 0x7ffff0161000 0x7ffff0181000 rw- 16 0 1 0 ---D df > > And those are thread stacks. Ok, lots of those (lots of threads going on) - but they're all pretty small. My code only has a single call to malloc, which allocates around 20k per thread. Obviously there's other libraries and stuff running with the code - so would I be correct in guessing that they are more than likely for most of these large blocks? -Karl