|
From: | Phil Holmes |
Subject: | Re: make doc problem |
Date: | Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:57:38 -0000 |
To: <address@hidden>; "Julien Rioux" <address@hidden> Cc: <address@hidden> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 1:38 PM Subject: Re: make doc problem
----- Original Message ----- From: "Julien Rioux" <address@hidden>To: <address@hidden> Cc: <address@hidden> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:00 PM Subject: Re: make doc problemOn 26/01/2012 11:13 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:On 22/01/2012 20:58, Julien Rioux wrote:Thanks, you're quite right CPU is not the limiting factor for the build. Disk access and usage of swap when compiling input/regression/collated-files slows down the build to a crawl for me.The problem here is that lilypond builds up memory from 400MB to ~1GB without releasing... Most of these allocations don't seem to be memory leaks, but rather due to guile. Cheers, ReinholdIs it a bug? We're talking about lilypond running with the -dread-input-files flag here. Once a snippet has been processed and lilypond moves on to the next one, there is no reason to hold onto the memory used by the previous snippet, right?-- JulienI'm trying to look at memory usage on my Ubuntu box. If I watch the build using System Monitor, I rarely see more than a gig used. However, using "free" even my dormant machine is now showing 3 Gigs used. Is this because I have around 2 Gigs marked as "cache"? Is the actual in-use memory used-cache?
Here's a graph of used-cache, which fits well with my observations of system monitor. My machine when lying dormant having finished make/make doc uses 970 MiB memory. The peak I saw during make doc was 2.4 Gig. So make doc takes around 1.4 Gigs when doing its greatest processing with 8 parallel processors. Is this too much for your machine, Julien? If it's a desktop, 4 Gigs of memory is about £30 now, which might be a simpler solution than messing with how make doc runs.
-- Phil Holmes
MemUsed.png
Description: PNG image
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |