Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:49:18 +0100
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16707: Memory leak
Message-ID: <20201111094918.GH391173@roeckx.be>
References: <16707-f5df308978a55bf8@postgresql.org>
 <1999972.1604957673@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20201109220329.GC391173@roeckx.be>
 <2002012.1604960437@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20201110043127.sfkyvvjqy7x3er5k@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20201110081120.GF391173@roeckx.be>
 <20201110193517.t5hbqkya67gb23rq@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20201110195039.GG391173@roeckx.be>
 <20201110224516.GA568918@roeckx.be>
 <20201111013808.4cev55uxq32bd6dd@alap3.anarazel.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201111013808.4cev55uxq32bd6dd@alap3.anarazel.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:38:08PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2020-11-10 23:45:16 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:50:39PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > > There's one known (slow) memory leak in the JIT code / LLVM. Could you
> > > > check if the issue vanishes if you disable JIT (jit = 0)?
> > > 
> > > I've just restarted it with jit = 0.
> > 
> > It's been about 3 hours since the restart, and it looks much
> > better, it seems to be solved.
> 
> Hm, darn. Any chance you could check if the leak is present if you turn
> on jit again, but disable inlining with jit_inline_above_cost=-1? If
> that still fixes the leak I think I know the issue / have a reproducer
> already...

So after about 14 hours, it shows:
$ grep kB /proc/32117/status
VmPeak:  4412436 kB
VmSize:  4389988 kB
VmLck:         0 kB
VmPin:         0 kB
VmHWM:   4261196 kB
VmRSS:   4239936 kB
RssAnon:            6112 kB
RssFile:            7340 kB
RssShmem:        4226484 kB
VmData:     5412 kB
VmStk:       132 kB
VmExe:      5388 kB
VmLib:     13032 kB
VmPTE:      8532 kB
VmSwap:        0 kB
HugetlbPages:          0 kB

The munin graph is also very flat now, so with jit=0, it seems
fixed.

I've just restarted it with
jit=1
jit_inline_above_cost=-1

I will let you know.


Kurt