From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55768) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUwPr-00071p-7N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:36:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUwPo-0008Na-0v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:36:27 -0400 Received: from mx-v6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:43664 helo=mx01.kamp.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUwPn-0008MS-M6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:36:23 -0400 References: <1440670734-5616-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <1440670734-5616-3-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <20150827103951.GN24486@redhat.com> From: Peter Lieven Message-ID: <55DF0437.2010201@kamp.de> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:36:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150827103951.GN24486@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] vnc: allow the Buffer to shrink again List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com Am 27.08.2015 um 12:39 schrieb Daniel P. Berrange: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:18:52PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote: >> currently the Buffer can only grow. This increases Qemu memory footprint >> dramatically since normally the biggest VNC updates are at connection time. >> But also after a VNC session has terminated there is one persistent buffer >> in queue->buffer which I have seen to increase to over 100MB and it is never >> getting smaller again. > Do you have any idea what caused the buffer to increase to 100MB in size > in the first place ? I would expect a full screen update would cause the > biggest buffer usage, and even for a 1920x1140 screen that should not > be anywhere near 100MB in size. IOW, i'm wondering if the 100MB usage > is symptomatic of a more serious bug somewhere else in the VNC code > that you're just masking you reducing buffer size afterwards. Maybe my commit message was a bit unclear. The memory usage of all buffers went up to 100MB. The issue with the Buffer is that its not shrinking and that the date is effectivly in 3 Buffers before its transferred on the wire. Plus depending on the encoding used there are even more internal buffers. Peter