mh+jemalloc at glandium.org
Tue Apr 3 09:21:21 PDT 2012
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:22:03AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > In Firefox, we're tracking some of the stats provided by our fork of
> > jemalloc. One of them is: - HeapCommitted - Memory mapped by the
> > heap allocator that is committed, i.e. in physical memory or paged
> > to disk. When heap-committed is larger than heap-allocated, the
> > difference between the two values is likely due to external
> > fragmentation; that is, the allocator allocated a large block of
> > memory and is unable to decommit it because a small part of that
> > block is currently in use.
> > It would seem like this could match stats.active, but i'm not
> > entirely sure it is the case. In particular, we don't count madvised
> > pages in that metric, but it would seem stats.active does, although
> > I haven't dug deep enough yet.
> stats.active tracks all pages with active application allocations in
> them. It does not include dirty unused pages for which madvise() has
> not yet been called, nor does it include pages that are entirely
> devoted to allocator metadata.
So essentially, what we are currently tracking as committed, which
doesn't include metadata, would be
stats.active + stats.arenas.<i>.pdirty for each arena
I'm starting to think it would be convenient to have special variables
that return the sum of the corresponding variables for all arenas.
Something like stats.arenas.pdirty that would be the sum of all
Another thing we do in that committed number is that we only count pages
for huge allocations instead of complete chunks. If you allocate
chunk_size + a few pages, stats.active will count 2 * chunk_size, while
what we are after is chunk_size + a few pages. As I'm considering
pushing this upstream, I would like to know whether you'd rather this be
done in stats.active, or a separate variable.
More information about the jemalloc-discuss