So - I've discovered that the increase in memory usage is coming from an update to ifupdown - not network manager.
Is that related to this list or should I report the issue elsewhere? On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Dan Williams <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:09 +0200, Uwe Geuder wrote: > > On 12 December 2011 09:29, Jeff Hoogland <jeffhoogl...@linux.com> wrote: > > > > > Attached are the two outputs you requested, digging through them now > to see > > > if I can pinpoint the issue. > > > > > > > Did you find out anything? > > > > I converted the outputs to csv, loaded them into an OpenOffice > > spreadsheet, summed up each category of memory and compared your 2 > > versions. The differences are really marginal, depending on the memory > > category sometimes in favor of the old and sometimes in favor of the new > > version. In terms of resident memory, which should be the most important > > measure (no swapping has occured) the new version is even 792 KiB (~ 7 %) > > smaller than the old one. > > Thanks for looking at that; I was going to suggest something like this. > As you've pointed out, RSS is the value that really matters. VSS > doesn't matter at all. So any large (>25%) increases in RSS size > between the dumps in any one library are interesting. But also that > would indicate increased usage *in that library*, not necessarily in > nm-applet. Now if you haven't changed any other packages/libraries on > your system, but you've just changed nm-applet from 0.8.0 -> 0.8.1, then > it may be that nm-applet is now using those libraries in a different way > that results in a difference in memory usage. ie, it's actually not > very straightforward to figure out this problem. Anyway, if we can > figure out what might account for the change (if there is a large > change) then we can look at what might be causing it. But if, as Uwe > says, the RSS actually *decreases* in 0.8.1 then we've already won? :) > > Dan > > > Unless my conversion script really screwed up something and by accident > > the bug just happened to level out your obvserved 110 MiB difference > > such difference does not exist. > > > > If anybody wants my script and my spreadsheets to double check I can send > > them by personal mail. I don't want the flood the mailing list with big > > attachments, which are probably not of big interest for most > > readers. (There are also other tools to read smaps files on the net, I > > have never tried them.) > > > > Memory consumption in Linux is a tricky thing. There are many different > > categories to measure (that's why smaps was added some time ago to show > > them all or at least many of them). There is no single correct number. > > If the tool you used to compute the 110 MiB delta shows only a single > > number, are you sure the way the number is calculated has not changed > > between your old and your new system? I assume you used the same tool in > > the old and the new system, otherwise it's even more likely that you > > ended up comparing apples and oranges. > > > > 110 MB difference looks huge by any measure. According to to my results > > the mapped address space of the new version is "only" around 46 MiB. I > don't > > think any reasonable measure can be bigger than the mapped space. (The > > old one is around 45 MiB, the difference 712 KiB) > > > > Regards, > > > > Uwe > > _______________________________________________ > > networkmanager-list mailing list > > networkmanager-list@gnome.org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list > > > _______________________________________________ > networkmanager-list mailing list > networkmanager-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list > -- ~Jeff Hoogland <http://jeffhoogland.com/> Thoughts on Technology <http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/>, Tech Blog Bodhi Linux <http://bodhilinux.com/>, Enlightenment for your Desktop
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
