Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:23:50 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: Virtual memory consumption (both user and kernel) in modern CURRENT Message-ID: <43F525A6.3080701@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <20060216135138.GA16669@flame.pc> References: <20060215024339.N22450@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <43F29BF5.4060300@freebsd.org> <20060216123548.GA35910@uk.tiscali.com> <20060216135138.GA16669@flame.pc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-02-16 12:35, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:11:49AM +0800, David Xu wrote: >> >>>> 1) Is it normal that virtual memory size for almost every non-kernel >>>> process >>>> is close to 50Mb now: >>>> >>>> ftp://external.atlantis.dp.ua/FreeBSD/CURRENT/top.txt >>>> >>>> Is it miscalculation or real growth of virtual address space? >>>> >>> I believe this is the new malloc code in libc, I am seeing this on my >>> Athlon64 machine, now it likes swap memory, in the old days, it seldom >>> touched it. >>> >> IIRR, the new malloc grabs 32MB immediately. However, I'd hope that doesn't >> mean that 32MB of pages are actually touched, and then get swapped out to >> disk. If it does, I'm staying on FreeBSD 6.0 :-) >> > > I don't think so. > > At least, not unless you are using the debugging features of malloc(), > which can result in all pages getting touched (i.e. if the "J" option is > enabled, to set all newly-allocated bytes to 0xa5, which is very helpful > when trying to catch accesses to uninitialized pointers). > > It's all a matter of what you are prepared to trade-off and why, I guess :) > And what am i trading off here? I have "/etc/malloc.conf@ -> ajz" and my memory usage has gone up the roof. My system used to be swap free, and now its swapping over 40 MB. Can someone explain to me why this new malloc is better? I don't see any speed improvements.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F525A6.3080701>