From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thelema314@gmail.com>
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E447F1C3
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:30:05 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  thelema314@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.223.182;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="thelema314@gmail.com";
  x-sender="thelema314@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  thelema314@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.182 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.223.182;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="thelema314@gmail.com";
  x-sender="thelema314@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-ie0-f182.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.223.182;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="thelema314@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-ie0-f182.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQCADaWr1DRVd+2kWdsb2JhbABEwC0IFg4BAQEBCQkNBxIpgh4BAQU4CAEbHAIDDAYFCw0JFg8JAwIBAgEPAhEBBQEcEwYCAQGHdgEDD6BVjDOCeIRbChknDVmIdQEFDItCaYEagycDiF6LToFVhWuFR4MwP4Qu
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,307,1352070000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="182888327"
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 23 Nov 2012 16:29:50 +0100
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id s9so12286229iec.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:29:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=3IonfxFSMF6rPtE4jtBequDdxrpsE8TQ7FOGsLqFUZc=;
        b=G6Vpd++NzTDmNiPoEqr5N3k14LvcZ3z76KFi7/bffOuzOPprJbvlLvUvE5VdvbgjtG
         eulDGq1zlwlUJfCiOOwwJK5rfzFSM+kncSwfBLeJK2R715oeD5dyW0IsicBueIPQPQcH
         DtKJNVSbeMpUq4cz3zsLwhwziNjT5QEMrFsoCfal9gHajIvVzHTeFCFXvRAZEXLBLP1x
         zr1Zow94jW9pFcn50nZbfgT+SBx5ZRFJujO8WBNTLYIAi2ysASZ0lyCfHVd9HzTbXSGH
         qec+GBb+KdPhEeFhEMEOd34YgR4QbuNFyhWYdb6kigQatdfRDu6PiDRDZvLR9qSQw8eJ
         7AZw==
Received: by 10.50.214.68 with SMTP id ny4mr3828425igc.65.1353684589950;
        Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.18] (99-121-78-10.lightspeed.lnngmi.sbcglobal.net. [99.121.78.10])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bg10sm4454638igc.6.2012.11.23.07.29.48
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50AF9672.4020800@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:29:54 -0500
From: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <CADjdUigz-nY8QNNcZfB_DdDonmPz-fGPFb6sFu1kxbNua-SdnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPFanBEgHoYOpojRMNFFeEN8Nv3fgn1whESy_P7Lp7KZWTmBgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBEgHoYOpojRMNFFeEN8Nv3fgn1whESy_P7Lp7KZWTmBgg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory usage of ocaml program

Also Bigarrays, although this falls under "libraries that use C bindings".

E.

On 11/23/2012 1:40 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> If you use the C bindings (or a library that does), you may have
> allocated memory from C, outside the OCaml heap. This memory is not
> handled by the GC and will not appear in the GC stats.
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Chengqi Song <songcq@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have the same program (same binary) running in different modes. From
>> GC stats I see they're using the same amount of heap now (209m) and
>> the stack is small. But in top's RES column, I see one is using 270m
>> memory and the other one is using 622m. Forcing heap compaction does
>> not change the numbers.
>>
>> I don't quite understand this difference. A program's memory usage
>> should be code, static data, heap and stack. For the same binary, code
>> and static data segment should be the same, and now that GC stats
>> tells me heap and stack are the same, why there is a 352m difference
>> in memory usage?
>>
>> Thanks