From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 7 11:23:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED35C106564A for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:23:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jb.1234abcd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC3B8FC08 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhgm50 with SMTP id m50so3184779yhg.13 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 03:23:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=QngU+k9YhN7ojF6+Z5Y2PF7YgJ6oftjHaVcNeaNUsJc=; b=JoFGEKYbUHNc+57VgkmQWQ/dzhIpTORtPNlsA/9VjSo0GMNX4kVXzJy9Ur0/exIaqt cTEAN2NavWpZPE+b3eUONwRszKpGhM6v24Y20dnSf9PV0FwVhj8F8mGfmQEVp0+NLa5J zL2cLJjLdF4H2h8EDnJMT/DvXEyFDAX3WrgjTPpf9hYZMWvJ9WZdCKmnH0blI2p0IOS7 lABefqVmFooxPswC/7wlaR8+aAVqDaIwJHvm9fRgjPtgn+qxrzP7ZVitz+lqxh7HCfQN YkePrrIUSofQFRhK3Blv0BLaG7QwQ9vedAKLukG5Jn+f5yK2S20H5gb5N9T4P81kyNSd 9GzA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.189.9 with SMTP id b9mr3578965yhn.48.1331118088608; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 03:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.146.232.12 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 03:01:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:01:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: J B To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: FreeBSD 8.2 - active plus inactive memory leak!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:23:30 -0000 On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:23:38 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:21AM +0000, Luke Marsden wrote: > ... >> I'm trying to confirm that, on a system with no pages swapped out, that >> the following is a true statement: >> >> a page is accounted for in active + inactive if and only if it >> corresponds to one or more of the pages accounted for in the >> resident memory lists of all the processes on the system (as >> per the output of 'top' and 'ps') > No. > > The pages belonging to vnode vm object can be active or inactive or > cached but not mapped into any process address space. I wonder if some ideas by Denys Vlasenko contained in this thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/157706 would be useful ? ... "Today, I'm looking at my process list, sorted by amount of dirtied pages (which very closely matches amount of malloced and used space - that is, malloced, but not-written to memory areas are not included). This is the most expensive type of pages, they can't be discarded. If we would be in memory squeeze, kernel will have to swap them out, if swap exists, otherwise kernel can't do anything at all." ... "Note that any shared pages (such as glibc) are not freed this way; also, non-mapped pages (such as large, but unused malloced space, or large, but unused file mappings) also do not contribute to MemFree increase." jb