From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (heap 1024 82721 1933216) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 06:12:49 -0800 Message-ID: <52DA8BE1.5090702@dancol.org> References: <52DA8412.2080009@dancol.org> <83lhydjt6d.fsf@gnu.org> <52DA86DE.3000401@dancol.org> <83k3dxjsd2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390054383 13759 80.91.229.3 (18 Jan 2014 14:13:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 18 15:13:09 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W4We5-0000gG-9R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:13:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42983 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4We4-0001kb-Aw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:13:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47401) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Wdx-0001kE-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:13:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Wds-0000b9-FS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:13:01 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:46156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Wdn-0000ab-06; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:12:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=bSgMhjKE3oZBkkakwzIIb0HBCp5ZyeS891nx9nHp/a0=; b=cfVfurPb/HWevChccAVRgKzkttYYsLj/uDUcT36it/Or/KQ79fsmP7T9Xfm9ZJYlnFKVivtCHujqxjc1ijYPatTr0IdQRSMpEtRKnKW4HwZUIJj3P1uVP2mRTM8hCyU41vUbaXg0qEgH2R8ei+o9WBvfuLfaJuFFLG/Y/2tQRqM4NM98pvseNKq7L54OujmIpspu31VE1v63wCEYh3wOKZ8beY5wxrCSaYH12xDf3JyjGMPnXB+i7UHK2sPbAANDJ6xyZcGqpYcmdn04Y+uyrJCMyJNO1uNNEOim25wNGhXD3wEDk6Th0dnAQlVwm2WXD4XPDDi8XWdJng5XzlaA/g==; Original-Received: from c-76-104-210-106.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([76.104.210.106] helo=[192.168.1.50]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Wdm-0005wk-DS; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 06:12:50 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <83k3dxjsd2.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:168685 Archived-At: On 01/18/2014 06:07 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:51:26 -0800 >> From: Daniel Colascione >> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> On 01/18/2014 05:50 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:39:30 -0800 >>>> From: Daniel Colascione >>>> >>>> On Emacs trunk, I recently got into a situation where Emacs had a vsize >>>> of over 6GB. After killing all buffers, garbage-collect reported (heap >>>> 1024 82721 1933216) as the most interesting part of its on its return >>>> value. dlmalloc's free memory retention seems a bit severe here. Are we >>>> just badly fragmenting the heap? >>> >>> Buffers are not allocated off the heap, as you well know. >> >> No, but their buffer locals might be. > > I find it hard to believe that buffer locals could devour gigabytes of > memory, no matter what fragmentation did we cause. I agree and never said they were --- I was just trying to eliminate as many GC roots as possible. Anyway, that's not the point: there's still 2GB of accounted memory sitting there unused.