Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:11:32 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: "Gumpula, Suresh" <Suresh.Gumpula@netapp.com> Cc: "alc@freebsd.org" <alc@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BSD 8.1 and 9.1 memory increase Message-ID: <CBDA4B8C-D0F5-43C1-9E7E-604EA7DA4BCD@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <D140B84E.34458%gsuresh@netapp.com> References: <D12DE5E5.2F3FB%gsuresh@netapp.com> <D12DE5F8.2F3FE%gsuresh@netapp.com> <D140B84E.34458%gsuresh@netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 17:54, Gumpula, Suresh <Suresh.Gumpula@netapp.com> wro= te: >=20 > Still trying to find out the reason for more memory foot print on 9.1 > compared to 8.1 . > Does some thing like clustering changes in page fault handling cause > memory foot print ? > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D235876 >=20 > Copying Alan Cox , if could throw some inputs on this. Superpages and how FreeBSD does its best to put runtime libraries in superpa= ge-able comes to mind.. The VMEM for libraries is what caught us off guard last year when dealing wi= th applications -- more libraries =3D=3D greater footprint past either 8.0 o= r 9.0 because of changes to VM/rtld. Conrad Meyer had a change out to reduce the footprint for libraries, but it w= as racy/incomplete unfortunately :/.. Hope that maybe helps...=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CBDA4B8C-D0F5-43C1-9E7E-604EA7DA4BCD>