Good. I'm making progress tracking down the problems in the code -
somehow a bunch of edits got lost. I'm fixing them. Involves changes
it all of the client state machines.
BTW, there is one I'm confused about. src/client/sysint/sys-getattr.sm
the last state action "getattr_set_sys_response" returns from several
places. It is not clear if ALL of them intend to terminate since they
don't all set the op_completed flag, but the only option in the SM is to
terminate. So I'm assuming they want to terminate. If you know
anything about that one I'd appreciate it if you'd look.
Walt
Sam Lang wrote:
I'm working with your branch Walt. Most of the code that does
allocation of the client state machines is the same.
-sam
On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Walter B. Ligon III wrote:
Should be careful here, since all of the code dealing with
PINT_client_sm's have been rewritten for the new SM code and Murali's
suggestions (for example) may not work so well.
Walt
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hey Sam,
I ran pvfs2-client-core in valgrind, and then ran Bonnie++ a few
times (10) on the mounted pvfs volume, and noticed the following
when I stopped the client process:
==20132== malloc/free: 1,298,824 allocs, 1,297,888 frees,
3,462,517,583 bytes allocated.
Allocating and freeing 3.5GB seemed extreme, so I went exploring.
It turns out that every time we allocate a PINT_client_sm, we're
allocating about 35KB:
(gdb) p sizeof(struct PINT_client_sm)
$4 = 37764
Oh boy.. that is definitely large..
static array of 8 PINT_client_lookup_sm_ctx, which itself has a
static array 40 PINT_client_lookup_sm_segment, which are each about
112 bytes. Anyway, it ends up accumulating.
So I'm convinced at this point that this is beyond the noise range,
plus its just cruft that we don't need. I'd like to swap out those
static arrays for dynamic allocation when we get to the start of
the lookup state machine. Any thoughts or suggestions?
I agree. It definitely does not look like noise region anymore.
How about we keep a pool of PINT_client_sm's around in client-core
and allocate from that instead of dynamically allocating one everytime?
My 2 cents :)
thanks,
Murali
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
--
Dr. Walter B. Ligon III
Associate Professor
ECE Department
Clemson University
--
Dr. Walter B. Ligon III
Associate Professor
ECE Department
Clemson University
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
