Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:45:04 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: less aggressive contigmalloc ? Message-ID: <20120823174504.GB4820@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <50366398.2070700@rice.edu> References: <20120822120105.GA63763@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <CAJUyCcPOte19TJXpCVAskhf%2BDia_Zg5uj6J_idW67rGsOLaZXw@mail.gmail.com> <20120823163145.GA3999@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <50366398.2070700@rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: ... > >yes i do see that. > > > >Maybe less aggressive with M_NOWAIT but still kills processes. > > Are you compiling world with MALLOC_PRODUCTION? The latest version of whatever the default is. But: > jemalloc uses significantly more memory when debugging options are > enabled. This first came up in a thread titled "10-CURRENT and swap > usage" back in June. > > Even at its most aggressive, M_WAITOK, contigmalloc() does not directly > kill processes. If process death coincides with the use of > contigmalloc(), then it is simply the result of earlier, successful > contigmalloc() calls, or for that matter any other physical memory > allocation calls, having depleted the pool of free pages to the point > that the page daemon runs and invokes vm_pageout_oom(). does it mean that those previous allocations relied on memory overbooking ? Is there a way to avoid that, then ? cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120823174504.GB4820>