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>