Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..

2012-11-03 Thread Ian Lepore
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 13:38 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 31 October 2012 12:06, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > Watchdogd was recently changed to mlock its memory. This is the cause > > of the RSS increase. > > > > If not wired, swapout might cause a delay of the next pat, leading to > > pani

Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..

2012-11-03 Thread Alan Cox
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 31 October 2012 11:20, Ian Lepore > wrote: > > > I think there are some things we should be investigating about the > > > growth of memory usage. I just noticed this

Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..

2012-11-03 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Konstantin Belousov > wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > On 31 October 2012 11:20, Ian Lepore > > wrote: > > > > I think there are some things we should be i

watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall

2012-11-03 Thread Ian Lepore
In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my recent discovery that watchdogd uses a lot more memory since it began using mlockall(2). I tried statically linking watchdogd and it made a small difference in RSS, p

Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall

2012-11-03 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:38:39PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase > between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my recent > discovery that watchdogd uses a lot more memory since it began using > mlockall(2). > > I tri

Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall

2012-11-03 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 20:41 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:38:39PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > > In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase > > between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my recent > > discovery that watchdogd

Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall

2012-11-03 Thread Xin Li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/3/12 11:38 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: > In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase > between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my > recent discovery that watchdogd uses a lot more memory since it > began

Re: watchdogd, jemalloc, and mlockall

2012-11-03 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 12:59 -0700, Xin Li wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/3/12 11:38 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: > > In an attempt to un-hijack the thread about memory usage increase > > between 6.4 and 9.x, I'm starting a new thread here related to my > > recent di

Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?..

2012-11-03 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hm, can you disable mlockall just to see what effect it has? Adrian ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Subversion - Sync Branch with Trunk

2012-11-03 Thread Tzanetos Balitsaris
Hello, During my GSoC project, I branched HEAD in order to use it for the development of the client side part of my project. After some changes, I tried to sync my branch with HEAD but I have faced an error. Now, I am trying once again to sync my branch with HEAD, but I get the exact same