From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (heap 1024 82721 1933216) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:07:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83k3dxjsd2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <52DA8412.2080009@dancol.org> <83lhydjt6d.fsf@gnu.org> <52DA86DE.3000401@dancol.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390054136 11165 80.91.229.3 (18 Jan 2014 14:08:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 18 15:09:03 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 1W4Wa5-0005ve-Fj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:09:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42953 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Wa5-0000iC-14 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:09:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46286) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4WZy-0000gG-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:08:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4WZs-0007Wn-0H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:08:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:60073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4WZr-0007WH-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:08:47 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZL00400OG80600@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:07:35 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZL004L0OKM0G00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:07:35 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <52DA86DE.3000401@dancol.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:168684 Archived-At: > 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.