From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70E2460CB7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:44:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6888112D37
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:43:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A8F6C12D2A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:43:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 75744451B0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:43:43 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
References: <20201210152338.19423-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <3dd51877-142c-55b2-e2ed-33f48ecb348f@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:43:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/84.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201210152338.19423-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.067 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied:  [RFC pve-qemu] disable jemalloc
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:44:14 -0000

On 10.12.20 16:23, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> jemalloc does not play nice with our Rust library (proxmox-backup-qemu),
> specifically it never releases memory allocated from Rust to the OS.
> This leads to a problem with larger caches (e.g. for the PBS block driver).
> 
> It appears to be related to this GitHub issue:
> https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1398
> 
> The background_thread solution seems weirdly hacky, so let's disable
> jemalloc entirely for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> @Alexandre: you were the one to introduce jemalloc into our QEMU builds a long
> time ago - does it still provide a measurable benefit? If the performance loss
> would be too great in removing it, we could maybe figure out some workarounds as
> well.
> 
> Its current behaviour does seem rather broken to me though...
> 
>  debian/rules | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!