Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:58:46 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, Krassimir Slavchev <krassi@bulinfo.net> Subject: Re: memory leak in free() Message-ID: <200606141358.47527.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060614175352.GI28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu> References: <448FC3AF.9060606@bulinfo.net> <449048C7.6090109@FreeBSD.org> <20060614175352.GI28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 13:53, Paul Allen wrote: > From Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:35:03AM -0700: > > This is on a 32-bit system, right? If so, what's happening is that the > > brk-managed space (data segment) is being fragmented, such that the > > address space isn't returned to the OS. However, this is not really a > > memory leak, since madvise() is called in order to let the kernel know > > that the unused space need not be swapped out. > > And in particular this should manifest itself as 'RES' declining but 'SIZE' > in top remaining unchanged. Until an over-commit hating individual manages > to get a patch into the tree, this should not be a concern at all. And any such patch would have to have a knob that defaulted to keeping overcommit on anyway. :-) -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606141358.47527.jhb>