> 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
