Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:24:12 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: alc@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: <20121103182412.GB73505@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAJUyCcOqBTZ2AtVEP1Zc43souXeLOZVBD=d%2BnXkKDc6JQ1a66Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <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> <CAJUyCcOqBTZ2AtVEP1Zc43souXeLOZVBD=d%2BnXkKDc6JQ1a66Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+cTHE2B7cPyeMCYH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com= >wrote: >=20 > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > On 31 October 2012 11:20, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> > > wrote: > > > > I think there are some things we should be investigating about the > > > > growth of memory usage. I just noticed this: > > > > > > > > Freebsd 6.2 on an arm processor: > > > > > > > > 369 root 1 8 -88 1752K 748K nanslp 3:00 0.00% watchdogd > > > > > > > > Freebsd 10.0 on the same system: > > > > > > > > 367 root 1 -52 r0 10232K 10160K nanslp 10:04 0.00% watchdogd > > > > > > > > The 10.0 system is built with MALLOC_PRODUCTION (without that defin= ed > > > > the system won't even boot, it only has 64MB of ram). That's a cra= zy > > > > amount of growth for a relatively simple daemon. > > > > > > Would you please, _please_ do some digging into this? > > > > > > It's quite possible there's something in the libraries that are > > > allocating some memory upon first call invocation - yes, that's > > > jemalloc, but it could also be other things like stdio. > > > > > > We really, really need to fix this userland bloat; it's terribly > > > ridiculous at this point. There's no reason a watchdog daemon should > > > take 10megabytes of RAM. > > Watchdogd was recently changed to mlock its memory. This is the cause > > of the RSS increase. > > > > > Is it also statically linked? No. I do not think that it is reasonable to statically link watchdogd. It might result in some memory saving, but I dislike the whole idea of static linkage on Tier 1 platforms. --+cTHE2B7cPyeMCYH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlCVYUwACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4ihBgCgmllKOe59qY5KhOr3TWIhuwRo ZSsAnjxN5zeep8omSq4UiTrw8tV13Zea =oYuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+cTHE2B7cPyeMCYH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121103182412.GB73505>