Virtual memory: Difference between revisions
m (→Swappiness) |
|||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
There is an aggressiveness with with an OS will swap out allocated-but-inactive pages to disk. | |||
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 | 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 | (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 | 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 | 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
|
'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
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)
- 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)
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