Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:52:32 +0000 From: "Meyer, Conrad" <conrad.meyer@isilon.com> To: "Gumpula, Suresh" <Suresh.Gumpula@netapp.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: BSD 8.1 and 9.1 memory increase Message-ID: <A3CAF0E84A34A540B4C74454358E003F370F872F@MX103CL02.corp.emc.com> In-Reply-To: <D141B2D9.34581%gsuresh@netapp.com> References: <D12DE5E5.2F3FB%gsuresh@netapp.com> <D12DE5F8.2F3FE%gsuresh@netapp.com> <D140B84E.34458%gsuresh@netapp.com> <CBDA4B8C-D0F5-43C1-9E7E-604EA7DA4BCD@gmail.com> <A3CAF0E84A34A540B4C74454358E003F370F8673@MX103CL02.corp.emc.com> <D1418389.344F3%gsuresh@netapp.com>,<D141B2D9.34581%gsuresh@netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Gumpula, Suresh [Suresh.Gumpula@netapp.com]=0A= Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:42 AM=0A= To: Gumpula, Suresh; Meyer, Conrad; Garrett Cooper=0A= Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; alc@freebsd.org=0A= Subject: Re: BSD 8.1 and 9.1 memory increase=0A= =0A= I just tried the change you mentioned on unmapping unused entries , and=0A= appears this saves good amount of real memory. On my idle machine it=0A= shows ~20M + real memory savings. Specifically the inactive/wired pages=0A= dropped down.=0A= https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1263=0A= =0A= And also drastic VSS size down for most of the processes. Is this=0A= incomplete or Can I take this change ?=0A= =0A= Thanks=0A= Suresh=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= =0A= Hi,=0A= =0A= The criticisms in the comments on that review are still perfectly valid. I = would not use the patch as-is.=0A= =0A= It is surprising that you see rsz reductions with it. I think it's probably= an apples-to-oranges comparison and the application(s) have not been warme= d up yet.=0A= =0A= Best,=0A= Conrad=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A3CAF0E84A34A540B4C74454358E003F370F872F>