qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] rcu: reduce half heap memory size by malloc_tri


From: Daniel P. Berrange
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] rcu: reduce half heap memory size by malloc_trim()
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:14:50 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:54:42PM +0800, Zhong Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 02:06:20PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:54:09PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 02:23:34PM +0800, Yang Zhong wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/util/rcu.c b/util/rcu.c
> > > > index ca5a63e..8d491a6 100644
> > > > --- a/util/rcu.c
> > > > +++ b/util/rcu.c
> > > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> > > >   * IBM's contributions to this file may be relicensed under LGPLv2 or 
> > > > later.
> > > >   */
> > > >  
> > > > +#include <malloc.h>
> > > 
> > > This header file is not mentioned in the C99 standard or POSIX.  It is
> > > probably not available on all host OSes that QEMU supports.  Please use
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_LINUX.
> > > 
> > > >  #include "qemu/osdep.h"
> > > >  #include "qemu-common.h"
> > > >  #include "qemu/rcu.h"
> > > > @@ -272,6 +273,9 @@ static void *call_rcu_thread(void *opaque)
> > > >              node->func(node);
> > > >          }
> > > >          qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LINUX
> > > > +        malloc_trim(0);
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > It is important that the rcu thread isn't overzealous in minimizing heap
> > > size if that means ordinary malloc(3) calls will experience latency
> > > spikes.  Please leave a few MB free so that malloc(3) doesn't take the
> > > slow path.
> > 
> > If you pass '0' the docs say that the minimum amount is left in the
> > heap, per M_TOP_PAD, which is 128kb.
> > 
> > Strangely the mallopt(3) man page suggests, that free() should automatically
> > trim the heap when its size exceeds M_TOP_TRIM, which is again 128kb by
> > default.  So I'm puzzelled by malloc_trim() would be needed unless there
> > are scenarios in which free() won't trim, that aren't mentioned in the
> > manpage.
> 
>   In fact, i firstly adopted mallopt() solution to optimize the heap memory,
>   but i found this function is NOT useful, which are difference with MAN's
>   description, so i had to swith to use malloc_trim().


> > Also, how does malloc_trim interact with tcmalloc.so that people often
> > use in preference to glibc's built in malloc ?
>   Thanks, you reminded me to consider tcmalloc or jemalloc.
>  
>   Whether below code is more suitable? thanks!
>   #if defined(CONFIG_LINUX) && defined(__GLIBC__)
>          malloc_trim(0);
>   #endif

Both of those macro symbols will still be defined even when tcmalloc/jemalloc
are in use.

I wonder if tcmalloc/jemalloc even suffer from the same problem that libc's
builtin malloc has ?

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]