Re: less aggressive contigmalloc ?

On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> ...
>>> yes i do see that.
>>>=20
>>> Maybe less aggressive with M_NOWAIT but still kills processes.
>>=20
>> Are you compiling world with MALLOC_PRODUCTION?  The latest version =
of=20
>=20
> whatever the default is. But:

The default is OFF, so jemalloc uses oodles and oodles more memory than =
before.  On any system less than 256MB that I've tried to boot on lately =
I've had to define MALLOC_PRODUCTION (which, btw, should be named =
WITH_MALLOC_DEBUG instead to conform to our naming scheme for options, =
but I digress).  With MALLOC_PRODUCTION defined, I boot on 32MB systems =
with about 8MB of RAM to spare when I get to the login prompt.

Warner

>> jemalloc uses significantly more memory when debugging options are=20
>> enabled.  This first came up in a thread titled "10-CURRENT and swap=20=

>> usage" back in June.
>>=20
>> Even at its most aggressive, M_WAITOK, contigmalloc() does not =
directly=20
>> kill processes.  If process death coincides with the use of=20
>> contigmalloc(), then it is simply the result of earlier, successful=20=

>> contigmalloc() calls, or for that matter any other physical memory=20
>> allocation calls, having depleted the pool of free pages to the point=20=

>> that the page daemon runs and invokes vm_pageout_oom().
>=20
> does it mean that those previous allocations relied on memory =
overbooking ?
> Is there a way to avoid that, then ?
>=20
> cheers
> luigi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"