Virtual memory: Difference between revisions

From Helpful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 593: Line 593:


<!--
<!--
The aggressiveness with with an OS swap out allocated-but-inactive pages to disk is often controllable.  
There is an aggressiveness with with an OS will swap out allocated-but-inactive pages to disk.


Linux dubs this ''swappiness''.
Higher swappiness mean the tendency to swap out is higher. {{comment|(other information is used too, including the currently mapped ratio, and a measure of how much trouble the kernel has recently had freeing up memory)}}{{verify}}


This is often controllable.
Linux calls this ''swappiness''.
Higher swappiness mean the general tendency to swap out is higher - though other, more volatile information is used too, including the system's currently mapped ratio, a measure of how much trouble the kernel has recently had freeing up memory.




Line 603: Line 606:


The cost is mainly the time spent,
The cost is mainly the time spent,
the benefit giving RAM to caches, and to programs (then also doing some swapping now rather than later).
the benefit is largely giving more RAM to programs and caches (then also doing some swapping now rather than later).


(note that linux swaps less aggressive than windows to start with, at least with default settings)
(note that linux swaps less aggressively than windows to start with - at least with default settings)




There are always pages that are inactive simply because programs very rarely use it (80/20-like access patterns).
There are always pages that are inactive simply because programs very rarely use it ([[80/20]]-like access patterns).


But with plenty of free free RAM it might not even swap ''those'' out, because benefit is so low.
But if you have plenty of free RAM it might not even swap ''those'' out, because benefit is estimated to be low.
I had 48GB and 256GB workstations at work and people rarely got them to swap ''anything''.
: I had 48GB and 256GB workstations at work and people rarely got them to swap ''anything''.




Line 663: Line 666:
'''On caches'''
'''On caches'''


Swappiness applies mostly to process's memory, and not to kernel constructs like the OS page cache, dentry cache, and inode cache.
Swappiness applies mostly to process's memory, and not to kernel constructs like the OS [[page cache]] (and [[dentry cache]], and [[inode cache]]).





Revision as of 11:45, 29 November 2023

The lower-level parts of computers

General: Computer power consumption · Computer noises

Memory: Some understanding of memory hardware · CPU cache · Flash memory · Virtual memory · Memory mapped IO and files · RAM disk · Memory limits on 32-bit and 64-bit machines

Related: Network wiring notes - Power over Ethernet · 19" rack sizes

Unsorted: GPU, GPGPU, OpenCL, CUDA notes · Computer booting



This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.


'Virtual memory' ended up doing a number of different things. For the most part, you can explain those things separately.


Intro

Swapping / paging; trashing

Page faults

See also

Overcommitting RAM with disk

Swappiness

This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.


Practical notes

Linux

"How large should my page/swap space be?"

On memory scarcity

oom_kill

oom_kill is linux kernel code that starts killing processes when there is enough memory scarcity that memory allocations cannot happen within reasonable time - as this is good indication that it's gotten to the point that we are trashing.


Killing processes sounds like a poor solution.

But consider that an OS can deal with completely running out of memory in roughly three ways:

  • deny all memory allocations until the scarcity stops.
This isn't very useful because
it will affect every program until scarcity stops
if the cause is one flaky program - and it usually is just one - then the scarcity may not stop
programs that do not actually check every memory allocation will probably crash.
programs that do such checks well may have no option but to stop completely (maybe pause)
So in the best case, random applications will stop doing useful things - probably crash, and in the worst case your system will crash.
  • delay memory allocations until they can be satisfied
This isn't very useful because
this pauses all programs that need memory (they cannot be scheduled until we can give them the memory they ask for) until scarcity stops
again, there is often no reason for this scarcity to stop
so typically means a large-scale system freeze (indistinguishable from a system crash in the practical sense of "it doesn't actually do anything")
  • killing the misbehaving application to end the memory scarcity.
This makes a bunch of assumptions that have to be true -- but it lets the system recover
assumes there is a single misbehaving process (not always true, e.g. two programs allocating most of RAM would be fine individually, and needs an admin to configure them better)
...usually the process with the most allocated memory, though oom_kill logic tries to be smarter than that.
assumes that the system has had enough memory for normal operation up to now, and that there is probably one haywire process (misbehaving or misconfigured, e.g. (pre-)allocates more memory than you have)
this could misfire on badly configured systems (e.g. multiple daemons all configured to use all RAM, or having no swap, leaving nothing to catch incidental variation)


Keep in mind that

  • oom_kill is sort of a worst-case fallback
generally
if you feel the need to rely on the OOM, don't.
if you feel the wish to overcommit, don't
oom_kill is meant to deal with pathological cases of misbehaviour
but even then might pick some random daemon rather than the real offender, because in some cases the real offender is hard to define
note that you can isolate likely offenders via cgroups now (also meaning that swapping happens per cgroup)
and apparently oom_kill is now cgroups-aware
  • oom_kill does not always save you.
It seems that if your system is trashing heavily already, it may not be able to act fast enough.
(and possibly go overboard once things do catch up)
  • You may wish to disable oom_kill when you are developing
...or at least equate an oom_kill in your logs as a fatal bug in the software that caused it.
  • If you don't have oom_kill, you may still be able to get reboot instead, by setting the following sysctls:
vm.panic_on_oom=1

and a nonzero kernel.panic (seconds to show the message before rebooting)

kernel.panic=10


See also



Copy on write

Glossary