Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:30:39 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, 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: <20060217013039.GA31540@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <43F525A6.3080701@rogers.com> References: <20060215024339.N22450@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <43F29BF5.4060300@freebsd.org> <20060216123548.GA35910@uk.tiscali.com> <20060216135138.GA16669@flame.pc> <43F525A6.3080701@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:23:50PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >On 2006-02-16 12:35, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> wrote: > > =20 > >>On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:11:49AM +0800, David Xu wrote: > >> =20 > >>>>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? > >>>> =20 > >>>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. > >>> =20 > >>IIRR, the new malloc grabs 32MB immediately. However, I'd hope that=20 > >>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 :-) > >> =20 > > > >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= :) > > =20 >=20 > And what am i trading off here? I have "/etc/malloc.conf@ -> ajz" and my= =20 > memory usage has gone up the roof. My system used to be swap free, and=20 > now its swapping over 40 MB. Can someone explain to me why this new=20 > malloc is better? I don't see any speed improvements. It's a couple of orders of magnitude faster for threaded binaries. See earlier posts by the author for extensive discussion. Kris --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFD9Sc/Wry0BWjoQKURArmJAKCVdnYJlrp/U1ZduzJlPsirHP34uACgr7AA F4c3rDDm4AqWkMxqQ4QL8rg= =HDly -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060217013039.GA31540>