Re: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, at 20:18, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:48:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 07:17:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2020-12-18 17:56:07 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > I'd be happy to run with a prototype fix for the leak to see if the other issue
> > > > does (not) recur.
> > >
> > > I just posted a prototype fix to https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210417021602.7dilihkdc7oblrf7%40alap3.anarazel.de
> > > (just because that was the first thread I re-found). It'd be cool if you
> > > could have a look!
> >
> > This doesn't seem to address the problem triggered by the reproducer at
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210331040751.GU4431@telsasoft.com
> > (sorry I didn't CC you)
>
> I take that back - I forgot that this doesn't release RAM until hitting a
> threshold.
>

Phew.

> Without the patch, it looks like:
>
> $ yes 'SET jit_above_cost=0; SET jit_inline_above_cost=0; SET jit=on;
> SET client_min_messages=debug; SET log_executor_stats=on; SELECT
> cfn();' |head -11 |psql -h /tmp postgres 2>&1 |grep 'max resident'
> ! 61820 kB max resident size
> ! 65020 kB max resident size
> ! 68812 kB max resident size
> ! 71152 kB max resident size
> ! 76820 kB max resident size
> ! 78760 kB max resident size
> ! 81140 kB max resident size
> ! 83520 kB max resident size
> ! 93084 kB max resident size
> ! 94756 kB max resident size
> ! 96416 kB max resident size
>
> With the patch and #define LLVMJIT_LLVM_CONTEXT_REUSE_MAX 1, it looks like
> this:
>
> ! 61436 kB max resident size
> ! 61572 kB max resident size
> ! 63236 kB max resident size
> ! 63236 kB max resident size
> ! 63556 kB max resident size
> ! 63556 kB max resident size
> ! 63880 kB max resident size
> ! 65416 kB max resident size
> ! 65416 kB max resident size
> ! 65416 kB max resident size
> ! 65416 kB max resident size

If you set the define to much lower, how low does this get? I didn't see an easy way to make the recreation of the context memory usage dependant, but that'd of course be much better than an #iterations based approach. I'll play around with your test tomorrow or so, if you don't, but now the next step is risotto...

Regards,

Andres