Hello
Thanks to everyone for tips and insight you gave me on this discussion.
~Razmig
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@f
In the last episode (Oct 21), Razmig K said:
> Le 21.10.2011 10:44, Peter Jeremy a écrit :
> > On 2011-Oct-20 19:57:31 +0200, Razmig K wrote:
> > It's not clear whether the program is attempting to determine it's own
> > (or a child's) memory footprint, or that of an arbitrary process. In
> > the
footprint?
Almost certainly yes. Measuring virtual memory is significantly less
important for real-world loads. Some of this is very nicely described
here: https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/wiki/ArchitectNotes .
definitely.
just run top and compare RES and SIZE fields.
extreme example:
#inc
On 21/10/2011 12:57, Razmig K wrote:
> Le 21.10.2011 12:26, Ivan Voras a écrit :
>> Well, do you know that SIZE in top is virtual memory size, not resident
>> size (which is the "RES" column)? You can allocate whatever you want
>> from virtual memory, it is not "used" until it's touched.
>
> Yes,
On 2011-Oct-20 19:57:31 +0200, Razmig K wrote:
> I'd like to measure the memory footprint in C/C++ code for a
>program running under FreeBSD and Linux in terms of total process size
>including heap objects. Due to execution length, I'd like to avoid the
>use of valgrind.
It's not clear whe
Le 21.10.2011 12:26, Ivan Voras a écrit :
Well, do you know that SIZE in top is virtual memory size, not resident
size (which is the "RES" column)? You can allocate whatever you want
from virtual memory, it is not "used" until it's touched.
Yes, I do. So do you suggest using RES as a better ind
On 21/10/2011 12:19, Razmig K wrote:
> Le 21.10.2011 10:44, Peter Jeremy a écrit :
>> On 2011-Oct-20 19:57:31 +0200, Razmig K wrote:
>> It's not clear whether the program is attempting to determine it's
>> own (or a child's) memory footprint, or that of an arbitrary process.
>> In the former case,
Le 21.10.2011 10:44, Peter Jeremy a écrit :
On 2011-Oct-20 19:57:31 +0200, Razmig K wrote:
It's not clear whether the program is attempting to determine it's
own (or a child's) memory footprint, or that of an arbitrary process.
In the former case, getrusage() is the obvious choice. This as a
po
Le 20.10.2011 19:57, Razmig K a écrit :
the memory footprint in C/C++ code for a program running under FreeBSD
and Linux in terms of total process size including heap objects
Well getrusage does actually exist in Linux, but its behaviour
isn't the same as on FreeBSD; struct rusage memory u
On 21/10/2011, at 4:27, Razmig K wrote:
>I think that it would be difficult to achieve the task in a
> platform-transparent manner, that's why I'll be using /proc//status on
> Linux, and do something else on FreeBSD.
>I was adviced to have a look on getrusage, which I did, but I found
>
Hello
I'd like to measure the memory footprint in C/C++ code for a
program running under FreeBSD and Linux in terms of total process size
including heap objects. Due to execution length, I'd like to avoid the
use of valgrind.
I think that it would be difficult to achieve the task i
11 matches
Mail list logo