From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ar.aichi-u.ac.jp ([202.250.160.40]) by ttr; Thu May 1 19:34:26 EDT 2014 Received: from [192.168.1.111] ([125.192.161.78]) by ar; Fri May 2 08:34:18 JST 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: [9front] 9pc64 From: Kenji Arisawa In-Reply-To: <33b8b17a064a9166802d333f512a5ba7@felloff.net> Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 08:34:20 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3B54C219-B268-4BAA-9638-62CEF6E18EDB@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> List-ID: <9front.9front.org> X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: social encrypted table software-scale HTTP descriptor browser References: <33b8b17a064a9166802d333f512a5ba7@felloff.net> To: 9front@9front.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) memory command on 9pc64 term% memory total 15.9 GB total kernel 2 GB total user 13.9 GB used user 8.32 MB used kernel 11.6 MB used draw 13.3 MB term% Test if large memory is really allocated to a process. H2: Test Code void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char *p, buf[256]; ulong i,n[4]; ulong GB = 1024*1024*1024; ARGBEGIN{ default: usage(); }ARGEND n[0] = 1; n[1] = 1; n[2] = 1; n[3] = 1; for(i = 0; i< 4; i++){ p = malloc(n[i]*GB); print("%d %dGB %08p\n",i,n[i],p); } read(0,buf, sizeof(buf)); } H2: The Result H3: 9front (9pc64) term% 6.out 0 1GB 00401938 1 1GB 404019a0 2 1GB 80401a08 3 1GB 00000000 the 6.out is running term% ps | grep 6.out arisawa 1383 0:00 0:00 56K Pread 6.out term% memory total 15.9 GB total kernel 2 GB total user 13.9 GB used user 8.28 MB used kernel 10.5 MB used draw 13.3 MB term% H3: 9front (9pcf) term% 8.out 0 1GB 0000a4a0 1 1GB 00000000 2 1GB 00000000 3 1GB 00000000 the 8.out is running term% ps |grep 8.out arisawa 1843 0:00 0:00 48K Pread 8.out term% memory total 3.42 GB total kernel 154 MB total user 3.27 GB used user 859 MB used kernel 6.38 MB used draw 8.77 MB term% Totally OK. It would be better if we get total memory size allocated to a process. memory command on both 9pcf and 9pc64 does not show malloced size. On 2014/05/02, at 6:51, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote: > so it works? > > -- > cinap