Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:41:43 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall
Message-ID:  <20121103184143.GC73505@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <1351967919.1120.102.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
References:  <1351967919.1120.102.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--I0oWFe1KborvVxk0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:38:39PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase
> between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my recent
> discovery that watchdogd uses a lot more memory since it began using
> mlockall(2).
>=20
> I tried statically linking watchdogd and it made a small difference in
> RSS, presumably because it doesn't wire down all of libc and libm.
>=20
>  VSZ   RSS
> 10236 10164  Dynamic
>  8624  8636  Static
>=20
> Those numbers are from ps -u on an arm platform.  I just updated the PR
> (bin/173332) with some procstat -v output comparing with/without
> mlockall().
>=20
> It appears that the bulk of the new RSS bloat comes from jemalloc
> allocating vmspace in 8MB chunks.  With mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) in effect
> that leads to wiring 8MB to satisfy what probably amounts to a few
> hundred bytes of malloc'd memory.
>=20
> It would probably also be a good idea to remove the floating point from
> watchdogd to avoid wiring all of libm.  The floating point is used just
> to turn the timeout-in-seconds into a power-of-two-nanoseconds value.
> There's probably a reasonably efficient way to do that without calling
> log(), considering that it only happens once at program startup.

No, I propose to add a switch to turn on/off the mlockall() call.
I have no opinion on the default value of the suggested switch.

--I0oWFe1KborvVxk0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlCVZWcACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hHhACguk/G8KdOYC2wQMMu6BH1WI8c
BlkAnRwhcgc8SnQ62sV90VvzzrvX+cLf
=s6o/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--I0oWFe1KborvVxk0--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121103184143.GC73505>