Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:25:09 +0300
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Krassimir Slavchev <krassi@bulinfo.net>, Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: memory leak in free()
Message-ID:  <20060615022509.GD86300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <4490713E.2050107@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <448FC3AF.9060606@bulinfo.net> <449048C7.6090109@FreeBSD.org> <20060614175352.GI28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu> <200606141358.47527.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060614184026.GC86300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4490713E.2050107@FreeBSD.org>

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

--+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:27:42PM -0700, Jason Evans wrote:
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:58:46PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>And any such patch would have to have a knob that defaulted to keeping
> >>overcommit on anyway. :-)
> >
> >Ha ! Exactly. My patch has such knob :).
> >Shameless plug: http://kostikbel.narod.ru/overcommit
> >
> >Testing the patch on recent CURRENT, I did notice that jemalloc
> >really likes the swap :).
>=20
> You're saying that jemalloc uses a lot of *reserved* swap space, right?=
=20
>  That's different than actually causing a lot of swapping, and=20
> something that is of no concern, IMO.
Yes, absolutely.

--+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEkMUEC3+MBN1Mb4gRAvuKAJ9u1G1JPIvzRje1330rSrBlJDb+0QCg9sk3
2R3OiL71TcPevf3vHHDSy9g=
=Lqaa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060615022509.GD86300>