From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 3 19:59:16 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 73DA4F11 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:59:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from anubis.delphij.net (anubis.delphij.net [IPv6:2001:470:1:117::25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5487F8FC08 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:59:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Xins-MacBook-Pro.local (nat-dip5.cfw-a-gci.corp.yahoo.com [209.131.62.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by anubis.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BEA121158; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:59:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=delphij.net; s=anubis; t=1351972756; bh=fP4UVmRIeOrbxxHjCRK+Wjvzczm8srMKl/BVtn+Enag=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=eEt3apahr4V95Z5j82mTIjX4PEVCzKEDO/astf3XrYxzgETXh+AGB3e+DfgEF9CrV RjDAFz08QdBT2saV98orTBB0skSy5WiknbqaL408tWqFzTQwTT7o7vrpFngZVW3cR4 2iTyspnOfc7yOk/H6BdX7jGiVC8rLlD/YWMWLVhY= Message-ID: <50957793.8060709@delphij.net> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:59:15 -0700 From: Xin Li Organization: The FreeBSD Project MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall References: <1351967919.1120.102.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <1351967919.1120.102.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:59:16 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/3/12 11:38 AM, 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). > > 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. Speaking for this, the last time I brought this up, someone (can't remember, I think it was phk@) argued that the shared library would use only one copy of memory, while statically linked ones would be duplicated and thus use more memory. I haven't yet tried to prove or challenge that, though. Cheers, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQlXeTAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuz7AUIAJOn67ETS7uHuIaPNByr9R6l S6l8uhwqTOsF+4jmuuDmjI25uiCAN4a3OU8i4n/ZGuarlip2Rr4BFWf+FUkkzdyk qButTuWC/agpuKofJ/7UubTXIEhpViWY/J2mqQTwgk+zeQ0bl2yjaqaR4hH3/ivi DQ3FWGzBhWD0Ohx/B0f33i9wvc5mCTTR5oxM78xvrQIPejG3lQHcwgmsd5XLgAuW 54UEEnklxAYLDf9eCsDo9nSsXQBKidmZop3ELtg08gUxtu5Ncf1+QraLxjdFzdr7 RrmQgcR4QrVtQeezWCRx2Y8VzGl0rtOunmQguNgkwRLo3KQlIU4IhpnaNrNez74= =HAd6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----