Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:59:15 -0700 From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall Message-ID: <50957793.8060709@delphij.net> 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
-----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-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50957793.8060709>