Memory usage regression
mh+jemalloc at glandium.org
Tue Oct 30 08:36:58 PDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:35:02PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:10:13PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > For reference, the unzoomed graph looks like this:
> > > > > http://i.imgur.com/PViYm.png
> > > >
> > > > I rediscovered --enable-munmap, and tried again with that, thinking it
> > > > could be related, and it did change something, but it's still growing:
> > > > http://i.imgur.com/lWzhG.png
> > >
> > > Needless to say, the increases I was observing closely on the the zoomed
> > > graph without a matching decrease was entirely due to munmap. Now I need
> > > to find the remainder...
> > I tested size class independently, and none would cause the VM leak
> > alone. Combining small and large classes do, but large + huge or small +
> > huge don't.
> Some more data: all non-unmapped chunks *are* used to some extent. The
> following is a dump of the number of requested and usable bytes in each
> chunk ; that's 18M spread across 600M... that sounds like a really bad
> case of fragmentation.
BTW, it does seem to grow forever: I went up to 1.3GB with more
iterations before stopping.
More information about the jemalloc-discuss