edwintorok at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 09:54:12 PDT 2010
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:36:53 -0700
Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> > I thought I dug into the register allocation code, and found the
> > VNInfo::Allocator typedef. I assumed that was getting the traffic
> > we saw in Instruments, but I don't have the data to back that up.
> Are you using llvm from trunk? VNInfo is a lot smaller now than it
> was in 2.7. I would guess about a third of the liveness memory usage
> goes through the VNInfo BumpPtrAllocator.
> >> By calling mmap directly, you are throwing all that system
> >> specific knowledge away.
> > So the goal of this particular modification was to find ways to
> > return large, one-time allocations that happen during compilation
> > back the OS. For unladen-swallow, we have a long-lived Python
> > process where we JIT code every so often. We happen to generate an
> > ungodly amount of code, which we're trying to reduce. However,
> > this means that LLVM allocates a lot of memory for us, and it grows
> > our heap by several MB over what it would normally be. The
> > breakdown was roughly 8 MB gets allocated for this one compilation
> > in the spam_bayes benchmark, with 2 MB coming form register
> > allocation and 2 MB from SDNodes.
> > We are looking at using mmap/munmap to avoid permanently growing
> > the heap.
> Don't try to outsmart malloc, you are going to lose ;-)
> This all depends on specific kernel implementation details, but you
> risk badly fragmenting your address space, and chances are the kernel
> is not going to handle that well. You are using the kernel as a
> memory manager, but the kernel wants to be used as a dumb slab
> allocator for malloc.
> I assume that LLVM is properly freeing memory after jitting?
> Otherwise, that should be looked at.
> So why isn't your malloc returning the memory to the OS?
> Is it because malloc thinks you might be needing that memory soon
> anyway? Is it correct?
> Does your malloc know that you are running with very little memory,
> and the system badly needs those 8MB? Maybe your malloc needs to be
> tuned for a small device?
> Is LLVM leaving a fragmented heap behind.
With mmap() it is always possible to fully release the memory once you
are done using it.
With malloc() no, it takes just 1 allocation at the end of the heap to
keep all the rest allocated. That wouldn't be a problem if libc would
use mmap() as the low-level allocator for malloc but it doesn't.
It uses sbrk() mostly for small (<128k) allocations, and even with
mmaps it caches them for a while.
I think that is because mmap() is slow in multithreaded apps, since it
needs to take a process level lock, which also contends with the lock
taken by pagefaults from other existing mmaps (in fact that lock is held
during disk I/O!).
More information about the llvm-dev