Re: [9fans] leak/umem question

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> 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?

i should have included this information.

the way i have things set up, the overhead is about ~6mb
and the additional cache goal is 512k.  the cache is very
small at this point to stress the cache.  although the
goal is 1/2mb, whole messages need to be cached and
the largest message is 11mb.

i found a bug late last night that prevented the cache
from being as aggressively managed as i intended.  the
image now gets up to "only" 19mb.

(on the other hand, before caching it took 150mb,
a size ~proportional to the mb size, not the largest message.)

> 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.

	; grep free /tmp/a | sumit
	13291456
	; grep block /tmp/a | sumit
	 6329424
	grand total is 19161k.

the image total is

	quanstro      11483    0:18   0:01    19464K Pread    8.out

so 19161k + 296 (executable size) = 19457.  this seems
reasonable given the 11mb message.

many thanks for the hint, russ.

- erik