Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:47:54 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: <1351964874.1120.73.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonS-OZDxHfYG82e%2BftvE_S_Rgw6NrhDd8nOMv1epE2-iA@mail.gmail.com> References: <615577FED019BCA31EC4211B@Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk> <509012D3.5060705@mu.org> <20121030175138.GA73505@kib.kiev.ua> <C25F1D47C8D6BA6E3A072D4B@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> <20121031140630.GE73505@kib.kiev.ua> <E098A4DED6FCBCD6E248DF22@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> <20121031172136.GB21003@dan.emsphone.com> <CAJ-VmonCRcu_kLkmy8%2B2R6X5VjUUo-TOK8uT5qW7_aia81=3%2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <1351707655.1120.94.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-VmokLJ7ed6Eye70_tQj1ohx-5i8%2BKkF7QZWuFzAQZEJPP2g@mail.gmail.com> <20121031190623.GL73505@kib.kiev.ua> <CAJ-VmonS-OZDxHfYG82e%2BftvE_S_Rgw6NrhDd8nOMv1epE2-iA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 13:38 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 31 October 2012 12:06, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Watchdogd was recently changed to mlock its memory. This is the cause > > of the RSS increase. > > > > If not wired, swapout might cause a delay of the next pat, leading to > > panic. > > Right, but look at the virtual size of the 6.4 process. It's not 10 > megabytes at all. Even if you wired all of that into memory, it > wouldn't be 10 megabytes. > > > > Adrian After gathering some more evidence, I agree that the huge increase I noticed in watchdogd is caused by a combo of jemalloc's behavior and the recent addition of mlockall(2) to watchdogd. Since this is only slightly tangentially related to the OP's questions as near as I can tell, I've entered a PR for it[1], and we can followup with a separate discusssion thread about that. While jemalloc can explain the growth in VSZ between 6.4 and 9.x, it doesn't look like mlockall() has anything to do with the original question of why the RSZ got so much bigger. In other words, part of the original question is still unanswered. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=173332 -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1351964874.1120.73.camel>