From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] leak/umem question
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:57:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <d0bf6bc6b96d8ccada0be8ea90cf5885@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20080622005550.161191E8C22@holo.morphisms.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c4c1e378-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

You didn't tell us much about your memory usage patterns.
Do you allocate large lots of large objects and then
free them?  That would explain the larger footprint
and the identical umem.  Do you agree with the second
allocation profile?

It is easily possible that aux/acidleak's bitmap code
is not quite right, and that the 28MB is in fact free.

Try running

pid=12345
echo 'leakdump({'$pid'})' | acid -lpool -lleak $pid |
	grep '^(block|free) ' >/tmp/a

and then you can paw through /tmp/a to see what
is reported for the last 28MB of address space.

Russ