From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4448 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 19:52:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4415 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 19:52:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scanner2.ics.uci.edu) (128.195.1.36) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 19:52:54 -0000 Received: from arrakis (arrakis.ics.uci.edu [128.195.11.166]) by scanner2.ics.uci.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i2IJpm4J028585 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:51:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <04d001c40d22$60a2aee0$a60bc380@ics.uci.edu> From: "Nick Savoiu" To: References: <04b201c40d19$602c8390$a60bc380@ics.uci.edu> <20040318193423.GA25318@nevyn.them.org> Subject: Re: Caching of object/libraries/files Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:52:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-100, required 5, USER_IN_WHITELIST) X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:46:47AM -0800, Nick Savoiu wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a rather large project composed of a small driver executable and > > quite a few .so libraries that it uses. > > > > When I invoke it with GDB, upon executing 'run' it takes quite a while for > > GDB to do it's thing (i.e. load symbols, whatever else it does) particularly > > since it does a lot of disk access. > > > > I was thinking that, if I start a GDB session on this project, run it for a > > while then quit and immediately restart a similar session, then most of the > > files would be cached. However, I see the same amount of disk access for the > > second session when 'run' is invoked as for the first. > > > > Any ideas why this is so? The GDB session itself uses about 340MB and I have > > 1GB RAM. > > This is something that I've been meaning to fix for a long, long time. > We unload all shared objects when the program exits; what we ought to > do is move them to a separate cache structure. That would be an immense help. Staring idly at the screen was never my idea of a good time :) Any idea when this could get fixed? Nick