Opened 3 years ago
Closed 21 months ago
#63731 closed defect (fixed)
sbcl @2.1.9 +fancy severe memory leak while building on Monterey
| Reported by: | snowflake (Dave Evans) | Owned by: | easye |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 2.7.99 |
| Keywords: | monterey | Cc: | dershow |
| Port: | sbcl |
Description
Building on Monterey 12.0.1 21A559
I noticed that the build had run for 1 hour. The sbcl process was at 99% cpu load and 1 hour of cpu time. The memory consumed by the process was 140 GB and it was slowly increasing.
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by snowflake (Dave Evans)
comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by reneeotten (Renee Otten)
that's something you should probably report upstream right or do you suspect this is caused by MacPorts?
comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by snowflake (Dave Evans)
Running the bootstrap sbcl with the run-sbcl.sh script without any arguments, within 30 seconds the memory usage was 30GB. No prompt was displayed. I had to killall sbcl -ABRT to terminate the process or at least to get it into the lisp debugger.
Viewing https://ports.macports.org/port/sbcl shows that at least 4 successful installations of sbcl on Monterery exist, 3 on M1 and 1 on x86_64. So I wonder what is different about my system. It is running the latest Monterey beta as of 3 days ago on x86_64.
There is no problem with building sbcl when running Big Sur here on x86_64.
I notice there is another ticket #63752 on M1 processor with the reverse problem: unable to assign memory
comment:5 follow-up: 7 Changed 3 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
In that bug report, it is suggested that we should use a newer bootstrap version than the 1.2.11 we are using now. Can we do that without any adverse consequences?
comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by easye
I have not been able to replicate the problems building SBCL on M1 Monterey with XCode 13.1 (13A1030d). Is it possible for @snowflake (Dave Evans) to use the newer XCode?
comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by easye
Replying to ryandesign:
In that bug report, it is suggested that we should use a newer bootstrap version than the 1.2.11 we are using now. Can we do that without any adverse consequences?
We can certainly try to move the bootstrap image version forward. The problem is ensuring that it works across all the architectures/os combinations that users in general want the port to build under.
I can certainly update the sbcl x86 bootstrap image, and run things in the Github CI.
As I understand the Github CI we are testing under 10.5 and 11 but on x86 only. I would lack coverage of macOS 12 on x86. Is there any notion of when we will be able to run macOS 12 x86 via the Github CI?
comment:8 Changed 2 years ago by dershow
| Cc: | dershow added |
|---|
comment:9 Changed 2 years ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
| Keywords: | monterey added |
|---|
comment:10 Changed 21 months ago by kencu (Ken)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
sbcl has been updated several times since this ticket, and the current version builds broadly, including on Monterey Intel
https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-12_x86_64-builder/builds/61171
On my 2007 iMac running El Capitan, a build of sbcl takes roughly 10 minutes to complete. Watching memory usage with
top, it never exceeds 1GB