I have an app that processes 3+GB of data into 300MB of data. Run each independent dataset sequentially on the main thread, its memory usage tops out at about 3.5GB and it works fine.
If I run each dataset concurrently on 10 threads, I see the following:
Virtual memory usage climbs steadily until allocations fail and it crashes. I can see GC is trying to run in the stack trace)
CPU utilization is 1000% for periods, then goes down to 100% for minutes, and then cycles back up. The app is easily 10x slower when run with multiple threads, even though they are completely independent.
This is mono 4.2.2 build for Linux with large heap support, running on 128GB RAM with 40 logical processors. I am running mono-sgen and have tried all the custom GC settings I could think of (concurrent mark-sweep, max heap size, etc).
These problems do not happen on Windows. If I rewrite code to do significant object pooling, I get farther in the dataset before running OOM, but the fate is the same. I have verified that I have no memory leaks using multiple tools and good-old printf-debugging.
My best theory is that lots of allocations across lots of threads are a weak case for the GC, and most of that wall-clock time is spent with my work threads suspended.
Does anyone have any experience with this? Is there a way I can help the GC get out of that 100% rut it gets stuck in, and to not run out of memory?
Related
I have a NodeJS server running on a small VM with 256MB of RAM and I notice the memory usage keeps growing as the server receives new requests. I read that an issue on small environments is that Node doesn't know about the memory constraints and therefore doesn't try to garbage collect until much later (so for instance, maybe it would only want to start garbage collecting once it reaches 512MB of used RAM), is it really the case?
I also tried using various flags such as --max-old-space-size but didn't see much change so I'm not sure if I have an actual memory leak or if Node just doesn't GC as soon as possible?
This might not be a complete answer, but it's coming from experience and might provide some pointers. Memory leak in NodeJS is one of the most challenging bugs that most developers could ever face.
But before we talk about memory leak, to answer your question - unless you explicitly configure --max-old-space-size, there are default memory limits that would take over. Since certain phases of Garbage collection in node are expensive (and sometimes blocking) steps, depending upon how much memory is available to it, it would delay (e.g. mark-sweep collection) some of the expensive GC cycles. I have seen that in a Machine with 16 GB of memory it would easily let the memory go as high as 800 MB before significant Garbage Collections would happen. But I am sure that doesn't make ~800 MB any special limit. It would really depend on how much available memory it has and what kind of application are you running. E.g. it is totally possible that if you have some complex computations, caches (e.g. big DB Connection Pools) or buggy logging libraries - they would themselves always take high memory.
If you are monitoring your NodeJs's memory footprint - sometime after the the server starts-up, everything starts to warm up (express loads all the modules and create some startup objects, caches warm up and all of your high memory consuming modules became active), it might appear as if there is a memory leak because the memory would keep climbing, sometimes as high as ~1 gb. Then you would see that it stabilizes (this limit used to be lesser in <v8 versions).
But sometimes there are actual memory leaks (which might be hard to spot if there is no specific pattern to it).
In your case, 256 MB seems to be meeting just the minimum RAM requirements for nodejs and might not really be enough. Before you start getting anxious of memory leak, you might want to pump it up to 1.5 GB and then monitor everything.
Some good resources on NodeJS's memory model and memory leak.
Node.js Under the Hood
Memory Leaks in NodeJS
Can garbage collection happen while the main thread is
busy?
Understanding and Debugging Memory Leaks in Your Node.js Applications
Some debugging tools to help spot the memory leaks
Node inspector |
Chrome
llnode
gcore
We're getting overnight lockups on our embedded (Arm) linux product but are having trouble pinning it down. It usually takes 12-16 hours from power on for the problem to manifest itself. I've installed sysstat so I can run sar logging, and I've got a bunch of data, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
The targets only have 512Mb RAM (we have other models which have 1Gb, but they see this issue much less often), and have no disk swap files to avoid wearing the eMMCs.
Some kind of paging / virtual memory event is initiating the problem. In the sar logs, pgpin/s, pgnscand/s and pgsteal/s, and majflt/s all increase steadily before snowballing to crazy levels. This puts the CPU up correspondingly high levels (30-60 on dual core Arm chips). At the same time, the frmpg/s values go very negative, whilst campg/s go highly positive. The upshot is that the system is trying to allocate a large amount of cache pages all at once. I don't understand why this would be.
The target then essentially locks up until it's rebooted or someone kills the main GUI process or it crashes and is restarted (We have a monolithic GUI application that runs all the time and generally does all the serious work on the product). The network shuts down, telnet blocks forever, as do /proc filesystem queries and things that rely on it like top. The memory allocation profile of the main application in this test is dominated by reading data in from file and caching it as textures in video memory (shared with main RAM) in an LRU using OpenGL ES 2.0. Most of the time it'll be accessing a single file (they are about 50Mb in size), but I guess it could be triggered by having to suddenly use a new file and trying to cache all 50Mb of it all in one go. I haven't done the test (putting more logging in) to correlate this event with these system effects yet.
The odd thing is that the actual free and cached RAM levels don't show an obvious lack of memory (I have seen oom-killer swoop in the kill the main application with >100Mb free and 40Mb cache RAM). The main application's memory usage seems reasonably well-behaved with a VmRSS value that seems pretty stable. Valgrind hasn't found any progressive leaks that would happen during operation.
The behaviour seems like that of a system frantically swapping out to disk and making everything run dog slow as a result, but I don't know if this is a known effect in a free<->cache RAM exchange system.
My problem is superficially similar to question: linux high kernel cpu usage on memory initialization but that issue seemed driven by disk swap file management. However, dirty page flushing does seem plausible for my issue.
I haven't tried playing with the various vm files under /proc/sys/vm yet. vfs_cache_pressure and possibly swappiness would seem good candidates for some tuning, but I'd like some insight into good values to try here. vfs_cache_pressure seems ill-defined as to what the difference between setting it to 200 as opposed to 10000 would be quantitatively.
The other interesting fact is that it is a progressive problem. It might take 12 hours for the effect to happen the first time. If the main app is killed and restarted, it seems to happen every 3 hours after that fact. A full cache purge might push this back out, though.
Here's a link to the log data with two files, sar1.log, which is the complete output of sar -A, and overview.log, a extract of free / cache mem, CPU load, MainGuiApp memory stats, and the -B and -R sar outputs for the interesting period between midnight and 3:40am:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B615EGF3fosPZ2kwUDlURk1XNFE&usp=sharing
So, to sum up, what's my best plan here? Tune vm to tend to recycle pages more often to make it less bursty? Are my assumptions about what's happening even valid given the log data? Is there a cleverer way of dealing with this memory usage model?
Thanks for your help.
Update 5th June 2013:
I've tried the brute force approach and put a script on which echoes 3 to drop_caches every hour. This seems to be maintaining the steady state of the system right now, and the sar -B stats stay on the flat portion, with very few major faults and 0.0 pgscand/s. However, I don't understand why keeping the cache RAM very low mitigates a problem where the kernel is trying to add the universe to cache RAM.
I have to run some performance tests, to see how my programs work when the system runs out of RAM and the system starts thrashing. Ideally, I would be able to change the amount of RAM used by the system.
I haved tried to by boot my system (running Ubuntu 10.10) in single user mode with a limited amount of physical memory, but with the parameters I used (max_addr=300M, max_addr=314572800 or mem=300M) the system did not use my swap partition.
Is there a way to limit the amount of RAM used by the total system, while still using swap space?
The point is to measure the total running time of each program as a function of the input size. I am not trying to pinpoint performance problems, I am trying to compare algorithms, which means I need accuracy.
Write a simple c program which
Will allocate large amount of memory.
Keep on accessing allocated memory random to try to keep in main memory (in an infinite loop).
Now run this program (one or few processes) so that you allocate enough memory to cause the thrashing of process you are testing.
I have a long running process that I suspect has a memory leak. I use top to monitor the memory levels of each process and nothing uses more than 15% of the total RAM. The machine has 4GB of RAM and the process starts with well over 3GB free. The process itself does very heavy, custom calculations on several MB of data. It takes a single core at 100%.
As time goes on, memory disappears but top does not blame my long running process. Instead, the "cached" and "buffers" memory increases and the "free" memory is reduced to as low as 2MB. The process eventually finishes its job and exits without issue but the memory never comes back. Should I be concerned or is this "normal"? Are there other tools besides top that can provide a deeper understanding?
Thanks.
That's normal. Your process is operating on files which are getting cached in memory. If there is "memory pressure" (demand from other programs) then that cache memory will be relinquished. The first time I wrote an X widget to show how much memory was "free" it took me a while to get used to the idea that free memory is doing you no good: Best to have it all in use doing some kind of caching until it's needed elsewhere!
I have my own multithreaded C program which scales in speed smoothly with the number of CPU cores.. I can run it with 1, 2, 3, etc threads and get linear speedup.. up to about 5.5x speed on a 6-core CPU on a Ubuntu Linux box.
I had an opportunity to run the program on a very high end Sunfire x4450 with 4 quad-core Xeon processors, running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I was eagerly anticipating seeing how fast the 16 cores could run my program with 16 threads..
But it runs at the same speed as just TWO threads!
Much hair-pulling and debugging later, I see that my program really is creating all the threads, they really are running simultaneously, but the threads themselves are slower than they should be. 2 threads runs about 1.7x faster than 1, but 3, 4, 8, 10, 16 threads all run at just net 1.9x! I can see all the threads are running (not stalled or sleeping), they're just slow.
To check that the HARDWARE wasn't at fault, I ran SIXTEEN copies of my program independently, simultaneously. They all ran at full speed. There really are 16 cores and they really do run at full speed and there really is enough RAM (in fact this machine has 64GB, and I only use 1GB per process).
So, my question is if there's some OPERATING SYSTEM explanation, perhaps some per-process resource limit which automatically scales back thread scheduling to keep one process from hogging the machine.
Clues are:
My program does not access the disk or network. It's CPU limited. Its speed scales linearly on a
single CPU box in Ubuntu Linux with
a hexacore i7 for 1-6 threads. 6
threads is effectively 6x speedup.
My program never runs faster than
2x speedup on this 16 core Sunfire
Xeon box, for any number of threads
from 2-16.
Running 16 copies of
my program single threaded runs
perfectly, all 16 running at once at
full speed.
top shows 1600% of
CPUs allocated. /proc/cpuinfo shows
all 16 cores running at full 2.9GHz
speed (not low frequency idle speed
of 1.6GHz)
There's 48GB of RAM free, it is not swapping.
What's happening? Is there some process CPU limit policy? How could I measure it if so?
What else could explain this behavior?
Thanks for your ideas to solve this, the Great Xeon Slowdown Mystery of 2010!
My initial guess would be shared memory bottlenecks. From what you say, your performance pretty much flatlines after 2 CPUs. You initially blame Redhat, but I'd be curious to see what happens if you install Ubuntu on the same hardware. I assume, of course, that you're running 64 bit SMP kernels across both tests.
It's probably not possible that the motherboard would peak at utilizing 2 CPUs. You have another machine with multiple cores that has provided better performance. Do you have hyperthreading turned on with the new machine? (and how does that answer compare to the old machine?). You're not, by chance, running in a virtualized environment?
Overall, your evidence is pointing to a ludicrously slow bottleneck somewhere. As you said, you're not I/O bound, so that leaves the CPU and memory. Either something is wrong with the hardware, or something is wrong with the hardware. Test one by changing the other, and you'll narrow down your possibilities quickly.
Do some research on rlimit - it's quite possible the shell/user acct you're running in has some RH-default or admin-set resource limits in place.
When you see this kind of odd scaling behaviour, especially if problems are seen with multiple threads, but not multiple processes, one thing to start looking at is the impacts of lock contention and other synchronisation primitives, which can cause threads running on different processors to have to wait for each other, potentially forcing multiple cores to flush their cache to main memory.
This means memory architecture starts to come into play, and that's going to be substantially faster when you have 6 cores on a single piece of silicon than when you're coordinating across 4 separate processors. Specifically, the single CPU case likely isn't needing to hit main memory for locking operations at all - everything is likely being handled at the L3 cache level, allowing the CPU to get on with things while data is flushed to main memory in the background.
While I expect the OP has lost interest in the question after all this time (or may not even have access to the hardware any more), one way to check this would be to see if the scaling up to 4 threads improves if the process affinity is set to lock it to a single physical CPU. Even better though would be to profile the application itself to see where it is spending it's time.As you change architectures and increase the number of cores, it gets harder and harder to guess where the bottlenecks are, so you really need to start measuring things directly, as in this example: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Sun-Donated-a-Sun-Fire-T2000-to-the-PostgreSQL-community-td2057445.html