On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Konstantin Belousov > <kostik...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > On 31 October 2012 11:20, Ian Lepore <free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org> > > wrote: > > > > I think there are some things we should be investigating about the > > > > growth of memory usage. I just noticed this: > > > > > > > > Freebsd 6.2 on an arm processor: > > > > > > > > 369 root 1 8 -88 1752K 748K nanslp 3:00 0.00% watchdogd > > > > > > > > Freebsd 10.0 on the same system: > > > > > > > > 367 root 1 -52 r0 10232K 10160K nanslp 10:04 0.00% watchdogd > > > > > > > > The 10.0 system is built with MALLOC_PRODUCTION (without that defined > > > > the system won't even boot, it only has 64MB of ram). That's a crazy > > > > amount of growth for a relatively simple daemon. > > > > > > Would you please, _please_ do some digging into this? > > > > > > It's quite possible there's something in the libraries that are > > > allocating some memory upon first call invocation - yes, that's > > > jemalloc, but it could also be other things like stdio. > > > > > > We really, really need to fix this userland bloat; it's terribly > > > ridiculous at this point. There's no reason a watchdog daemon should > > > take 10megabytes of RAM. > > Watchdogd was recently changed to mlock its memory. This is the cause > > of the RSS increase. > > > > > Is it also statically linked?
No. I do not think that it is reasonable to statically link watchdogd. It might result in some memory saving, but I dislike the whole idea of static linkage on Tier 1 platforms.
pgpNDz1ZE5tte.pgp
Description: PGP signature
