Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..

[David Xu]

On 2012/10/31 22:44, Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
>
> --On 31 October 2012 16:06 +0200 Konstantin Belousov
> <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since you neglected to provide the verbatim output of procstat, nothing
>> conclusive can be said. Obviously, you can make an investigation on your
>> own.
>
> Sorry - when I ran it this morning the output was several hundred lines
> - I didn't want to post all of that to the list 99% of the lines are
> very similar. I can email it you off-list if having the whole lot will
> help?
>
>>> Then there's a bunch of 'large' blocks e.g..
>>>
>>>  PID              START                END PRT  RES PRES REF SHD  FL TP
>>>  PATH 2010        0x801c00000        0x802800000 rw- 2869    0   4   0
>>> ---- df 2010        0x802800000        0x803400000 rw- 1880    0   1   0
>>
>> Most likely, these are malloc arenas.
>
> Ok, that's the heaviest usage.
>
>>> Then lots of 'little' blocks,
>>>
>>> 2010     0x7ffff0161000     0x7ffff0181000 rw-   16    0   1   0 ---D df
>>
>> And those are thread stacks.
>
> Ok, lots of those (lots of threads going on) - but they're all pretty
> small.
>
Note that libc_r's thread stack is 64K, while libthr has 1M bytes
per-thread.

> My code only has a single call to malloc, which allocates around 20k per
> thread.
>
> Obviously there's other libraries and stuff running with the code - so
> would I be correct in guessing that they are more than likely for most
> of these large blocks?
>
> -Karl
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>