From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 1 02:12:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D501DBE for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 02:12:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0308FC08; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 02:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from xyf.my.dom (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA12CSVM098128; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 02:12:29 GMT (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5091DA90.7050507@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:12:32 +0800 From: David Xu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120822 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karl Pielorz Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. References: <20121030182727.48f5e649@X220.ovitrap.com> <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> <615577FED019BCA31EC4211B@Octca64MkIV.tdx.co.uk> <509012D3.5060705@mu.org> <20121030175138.GA73505@kib.kiev.ua> <20121031140630.GE73505@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:12:30 -0000 On 2012/10/31 22:44, Karl Pielorz wrote: > > > --On 31 October 2012 16:06 +0200 Konstantin Belousov > 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@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >