On 03/25/2016 10:57 AM, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is just a quick note to inform you.
> I measured the memory consumption with -d31 by VmHWM in
> /proc/PID/status and compared them between v3 and v4 since
> Minfei said the problem only occurs in v4.
>
> | VmHWM[kB]
> num-thread | v3 v4
> ------------+--------------------------
> 1 | 20,516 20,516
> 2 | 20,624 20,628
> 4 | 20,832 20,832
> 8 | 21,292 21,288
> 16 | 22,240 22,236
> 32 | 24,096 24,100
> 64 | 27,900 27,888
>
> According to this result, the problem we face seems not just
> any lack of memory issue.
>
Yes, I had realized it, for there isn't much difference between v3 and v4.
And it is hardly to some further investigation, until get Minfei's result.
BTW, can you reproduce the bug?
> BTW, the memory consumption increases depending on num-thread,
> I think it should be considered in the calculate_cyclic_buffer_size().
>
I will think about it.
--
Thanks
Zhou
>
> Thanks,
> Atsushi Kumagai
>
> diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c
> index 4075f3e..d5626f9 100644
> --- a/makedumpfile.c
> +++ b/makedumpfile.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,14 @@ extern int find_vmemmap();
>
> char filename_stdout[] = FILENAME_STDOUT;
>
> +void
> +print_VmHWM(void)
> +{
> + char command[64];
> + sprintf(command, "grep VmHWM /proc/%d/status", getpid());
> + system(command);
> +}
> +
> /* Cache statistics */
> static unsigned long long cache_hit;
> static unsigned long long cache_miss;
> @@ -11185,5 +11193,7 @@ out:
> }
> free_elf_info();
>
> + print_VmHWM();
> +
> return retcd;
> }
>
>
>> Hi, Zhou.
>>
>> I'm on holiday now, you can ask other people to help test, if necessary.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Minfei
>>
>>> ? 2016?3?24??12:29?Zhou, Wenjian/??? <zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com> ???
>>>
>>> Hello Minfei,
>>>
>>> How do these two patches work?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks
>>> Zhou
>>>
>>>> On 03/18/2016 01:48 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/???" wrote:
>>>>> On 03/18/2016 12:16 PM, Minfei Huang wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/18/16 at 10:46am, "Zhou, Wenjian/???" wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Minfei,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I can't produce the bug, I reviewed the patch and wrote an increment patch.
>>>>>> Though there are some bugs in the increment patch,
>>>>>> I wonder if the previous bug still exists with this patch.
>>>>>> Could you help me confirm it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. I will help verify this increasing patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I have another question.
>>>>>> Did it only occur in patch v4?
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue doesn't exist in v3. I have pasted the test result with
>>>>> --num-thread 32 in that thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> applied makedumpfile with option -d 31 --num-threads 32
>>>>> real 3m3.533s
>>>>
>>>> Oh, then the patch in the previous mail may not work.
>>>>
>>>> I'm appreciated if you can also test the patch in this letter.
>>>>
>>>> I introduced semaphore to fix the bug in the v3.
>>>> So I want to know if it is this which affects the result.
>>>> The attached patch is based on v4, used to remove semaohore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> kexec mailing list
>>>> kexec at lists.infradead.org
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kexec mailing list
>> kexec at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>
>
