Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:47:52 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Yuri <yuri@freebsd.org> Cc: Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to explain high memory consumption of a jail after all large processed in it have finished? Message-ID: <1a71adc61f78a9f09e825d1f37fd9461@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <ea8fb2d0-17c6-4152-aebf-8cc6083591b8@FreeBSD.org> References: <ea8fb2d0-17c6-4152-aebf-8cc6083591b8@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --=_963277b86430c7fcb3ec3a43502aacbb Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Am 2024-09-12 20:45, schrieb Yuri: > I noticed that when the port lang/rust is building in the poudriere > jail the memory consumption of the host system remains high all the way > into the packaging phase when the pkg-static process is the only active > process and it consumes a very little memory. > > > During build a lot of memory is consumed, which is understandable. The > system remains at ~500MB of free memory through the build process, > according to top(1). > > > But once the build is finished, poudriere goes into the "packaging" > phase which only runs a small pkg-static process that compresses the > built files. pkg-static is the only active process in the poudriere > jail. > > > What looks strange to me is that the host system's memory consumption > remains high through the "packaging" phase which itself is low in > memory, and only goes down when the jail is destroyed. > > > How to explain the high memory consumption of a jail after all large > presses have finished? That's not enough information to answer it, but my crystal ball hints at an interaction between nullfs/zfs. Most probably it's not the jail-teardown itself which frees the mem, but the unmounting of some nullfs mounts. Depending on the version of FreeBSD you are using, you could try if "sysctl vfs.nullfs.cache_vnodes=0" changes this behavior (I'm not saying that this is a "solution" to the "issue" you see, I simply say this may change the behavior). Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF --=_963277b86430c7fcb3ec3a43502aacbb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc; size=833 Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEER9UlYXp1PSd08nWXEg2wmwP42IYFAmbj4CgACgkQEg2wmwP4 2IZF+w//SeMMxqHXEW/WBhQSRht+FDf1jINs198yyuObKDfShsaFYHEDzZ6G9lUG b/ZyEtqihVKe6+1p0o3TipqVsdwFtzfq7T0jan3flxN+hZn/ZrlR+g/Mr/66aIu5 A6z6ybz1cnoxd0jRjpJwaRTdj2MzUMv+SytyiItyCj5b2qlPc2wdAJ1P4ybIpnef vxDXNnUt/fhKQRGAuy/MT7Kb3/CMm8PF/5lAvRGGQ/HoxfBdYuVY/tNAFCNcfwu+ avONnDcE6ZcCou29uK4ow+5hBxV0f9Y8MXiP6hwqZV0FK+pT9IeT6u4drf+t7Nab efBI3U3pRy865qeKkIWA4BMcsqAaMjYJ6Rv1hI00rTQrePsBLH6Lrw93RibLoElD UqiWvzYzadIOF0o2eontTEKocde07QsfJcZh7HsCB0MgDbfXHWiNJG7H4bzfNxsV XPulgr/lylgQXmNruikTHqvT391qO4AzW1xUzNQUg60kePcaBnvF3rCgtffRjFUR 18RXagYuF4UguWUNi7h15nwqRpz3BJCkaZCjLzexH+rq6YG8iZUUAYxxeqxghIYs m+k/h+0DOU0svFbxA1DxgfZD4UNg1jKaubqjc03Ow9b+SGueZs2qe39AVMmgmy3X T0ryqIWYT2NSDpTjpwd5SOIivEr6kHeXF4CRSaPdIVwMYxBJhzY= =8otd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_963277b86430c7fcb3ec3a43502aacbb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1a71adc61f78a9f09e825d1f37fd9461>