To me it's not clear what's the difference between the two Linux memory concepts : buffer and cache. I've read through this post and it seems to me that the difference between them is the expiration policy:
buffer's policy is first-in, first-out
cache's policy is Least Recently Used.
Am I right?
In particular, I'm looking at the two commands: free and vmstat
james#utopia:~$ vmstat -S M
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
5 0 0 173 67 912 0 0 19 59 75 1087 24 4 71 1
james#utopia:~$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2007 1834 172 0 67 914
-/+ buffers/cache: 853 1153
Swap: 2859 0 2859
Buffers are associated with a specific block device, and cover caching
of filesystem metadata as well as tracking in-flight pages. The cache
only contains parked file data. That is, the buffers remember what's
in directories, what file permissions are, and keep track of what
memory is being written from or read to for a particular block device.
The cache only contains the contents of the files themselves.
quote link
Cited answer (for reference):
Short answer: Cached is the size of the page cache. Buffers is the size of in-memory block I/O buffers. Cached matters; Buffers is largely irrelevant.
Long answer: Cached is the size of the Linux page cache, minus the memory in the swap cache, which is represented by SwapCached (thus the total page cache size is Cached + SwapCached). Linux performs all file I/O through the page cache. Writes are implemented as simply marking as dirty the corresponding pages in the page cache; the flusher threads then periodically write back to disk any dirty pages. Reads are implemented by returning the data from the page cache; if the data is not yet in the cache, it is first populated. On a modern Linux system, Cached can easily be several gigabytes. It will shrink only in response to memory pressure. The system will purge the page cache along with swapping data out to disk to make available more memory as needed.
Buffers are in-memory block I/O buffers. They are relatively short-lived. Prior to Linux kernel version 2.4, Linux had separate page and buffer caches. Since 2.4, the page and buffer cache are unified and Buffers is raw disk blocks not represented in the page cache—i.e., not file data. The Buffers metric is thus of minimal importance. On most systems, Buffers is often only tens of megabytes.
"Buffers" represent how much portion of RAM is dedicated to cache disk blocks. "Cached" is similar like "Buffers", only this time it caches pages from file reading.
quote from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110207101856/http://www.linuxforums.org/articles/using-top-more-efficiently_89.html
It's not 'quite' as simple as this, but it might help understand:
Buffer is for storing file metadata (permissions, location, etc). Every memory page is kept track of here.
Cache is for storing actual file contents.
Explained by Red Hat:
Cache Pages:
A cache is the part of the memory which transparently stores data so that future requests for that data can be served faster. This memory is utilized by the kernel to cache disk data and improve i/o performance.
The Linux kernel is built in such a way that it will use as much RAM as it can to cache information from your local and remote filesystems and disks. As the time passes over various reads and writes are performed on the system, kernel tries to keep data stored in the memory for the various processes which are running on the system or the data that of relevant processes which would be used in the near future. The cache is not reclaimed at the time when process get stop/exit, however when the other processes requires more memory then the free available memory, kernel will run heuristics to reclaim the memory by storing the cache data and allocating that memory to new process.
When any kind of file/data is requested then the kernel will look for a copy of the part of the file the user is acting on, and, if no such copy exists, it will allocate one new page of cache memory and fill it with the appropriate contents read out from the disk.
The data that is stored within a cache might be values that have been computed earlier or duplicates of original values that are stored elsewhere in the disk. When some data is requested, the cache is first checked to see whether it contains that data. The data can be retrieved more quickly from the cache than from its source origin.
SysV shared memory segments are also accounted as a cache, though they do not represent any data on the disks. One can check the size of the shared memory segments using ipcs -m command and checking the bytes column.
Buffers:
Buffers are the disk block representation of the data that is stored under the page caches. Buffers contains the metadata of the files/data which resides under the page cache.
Example: When there is a request of any data which is present in the page cache, first the kernel checks the data in the buffers which contain the metadata which points to the actual files/data contained in the page caches. Once from the metadata the actual block address of the file is known, it is picked up by the kernel for processing.
buffer and cache.
A buffer is something that has yet to be "written" to disk.
A cache is something that has been "read" from the disk and stored for later use.
I think this page will help understanding the difference between buffer and cache deeply. http://www.tldp.org/LDP/sag/html/buffer-cache.html
Reading from a disk is very slow compared to accessing (real) memory. In addition, it is common to read the same part of a disk several times during relatively short periods of time. For example, one might first read an e-mail message, then read the letter into an editor when replying to it, then make the mail program read it again when copying it to a folder. Or, consider how often the command ls might be run on a system with many users. By reading the information from disk only once and then keeping it in memory until no longer needed, one can speed up all but the first read. This is called disk buffering, and the memory used for the purpose is called the buffer cache.
Since memory is, unfortunately, a finite, nay, scarce resource, the buffer cache usually cannot be big enough (it can't hold all the data one ever wants to use). When the cache fills up, the data that has been unused for the longest time is discarded and the memory thus freed is used for the new data.
Disk buffering works for writes as well. On the one hand, data that is written is often soon read again (e.g., a source code file is saved to a file, then read by the compiler), so putting data that is written in the cache is a good idea. On the other hand, by only putting the data into the cache, not writing it to disk at once, the program that writes runs quicker. The writes can then be done in the background, without slowing down the other programs.
Seth Robertson's Link 2 said "For thorough understanding of those terms, refer to Linux kernel book like Linux Kernel Development by Robert M. Love."
I found some contents about 'buffer' in the 2nd edition of the book.
Although the physical device itself is addressable at the sector level, the kernel performs all disk operations in terms of blocks.
When a block is stored in memory (say, after a read or pending a write), it is stored in a 'buffer'. Each 'buffer' is associated with exactly one block. The 'buffer' serves as the object that represents a disk block in memory.
A 'buffer' is the in-memory representation of a single physical disk block.
Block I/O operations manipulate a single disk block at a time. A common block I/O operation is reading and writing inodes. The kernel provides the bread() function to perform a low-level read of a single block from disk. Via 'buffers', disk blocks are mapped to their associated in-memory pages. "
Quote from the book:
Introduction to Information Retrieval
Cache
We want to keep as much data as possible in memory, especially those data that we need to access frequently. We call the technique of keeping frequently used disk data in main memory caching.
Buffer
Operating systems generally read and write entire blocks. Thus, reading a single byte from disk can take as much time as reading the entire block. Block sizes of 8, 16, 32, and 64 kilobytes (KB) are common. We call the part of main memory where a block being read or written is stored a buffer.
Buffer is an area of memory used to temporarily store data while it's being moved from one place to another.
Cache is a temporary storage area used to store frequently accessed data for rapid access. Once the data is stored in the cache, future use can be done by accessing the cached copy rather than re-fetching the original data, so that the average access time is shorter.
Note: buffer and cache can be allocated on disk as well
Buffer contains metadata which helps improve write performance
Cache contains the file content itself (sometimes yet to write to disk) which improves read performance
For starters the general concept would be helpful, a buffer is an area of memory used to temporarily store data while being moved from one place to another. On the other hand, a cache is a temporary storage area to store frequently accessed data for rapid access.
In Linux:
The cache in Linux is called Page Cache. It is that certain amount of system memory that the kernel reserves for caching the file system disk accesses. This is to make overall performance faster. During Linux read system calls, the kernel checks if the cache contains the requested blocks of data. If it does, then that would be a successful cache hit. The cache returns this data without doing any I/O to the disk system. The Linux cache approach is called a write-back cache. This means first, the data is written to cache memory and marked as dirty until synchronized to disk. Then, the kernel maintains the internal data structure to optimize which data to evict from the cache when the cache demands any additional space. For example, when memory usage reaches certain thresholds, background tasks start writing dirty data to disk, thereby emptying the memory cache.
Reading from a disk is very slow compared to accessing (real) memory. In addition, it is common to read the same part of a disk several times during relatively short periods of time. For example, one might first read an e-mail message, then read the letter into an editor when replying to it, then make the mail program read it again when copying it to a folder. Or, consider how often the command ls might be run on a system with many users. By reading the information from disk only once and then keeping it in memory until no longer needed, one can speed up all but the first read. This is called disk buffering, and the memory used for the purpose is called the buffer cache.
Cache: This is a place acquired by kernel on physical RAM to store pages in caches. Now we need some sort of index to get the address of pages from caches. Here we need the buffer for page caches which keeps metadata of page cache.
From the man page for free:
DESCRIPTION
free displays the total amount of free and used physical and swap memory in the system, as well as the buffers and caches used by the
kernel. The information is gathered by parsing /proc/meminfo. The displayed columns are:
total Total installed memory (MemTotal and SwapTotal in /proc/meminfo)
used Used memory (calculated as total - free - buffers - cache)
free Unused memory (MemFree and SwapFree in /proc/meminfo)
shared Memory used (mostly) by tmpfs (Shmem in /proc/meminfo)
buffers
Memory used by kernel buffers (Buffers in /proc/meminfo)
cache Memory used by the page cache and slabs (Cached and SReclaimable in /proc/meminfo)
buff/cache
Sum of buffers and cache
available
Estimation of how much memory is available for starting new applications, without swapping. Unlike the data provided by the cache
or free fields, this field takes into account page cache and also that not all reclaimable memory slabs will be reclaimed due to
items being in use (MemAvailable in /proc/meminfo, available on kernels 3.14, emulated on kernels 2.6.27+, otherwise the same as
free)
Related
I'm having a hard time telling the difference between the different cache areas (OS). I'd love a brief explanation about disk\buffer\swap\page cache. Where do they reside? What are the main differences between them?
From what I understand the page cache is part of the main memory that stores pages brought from an I/O device.
Are buffer cache and disk cache the same? Do they "live" at the I/O device?
Many thanks!!
In linux two caches were distinct: Files were in the page cache, disk blocks were in the buffer cache. Given that most files are represented by a filesystem on a disk, data was represented twice, once in each of the caches. Many Unix systems follow a similar pattern.
The buffer cache remains, however, as the kernel still needs to perform block I/O in terms of blocks, not pages. As most blocks represent file data, most of the buffer cache is represented by the page cache. But a small amount of block data isn't file backed—metadata and raw block I/O for example—and thus is solely represented by the buffer cache.
Disk cache/Buffer cache
This cache caches disk blocks to optimize block I/O.
It is the RAM used for faster access to disk.It is embedded in the disk or it can be portion of Main memory set aside.
Swap cache/Page cache
This cache caches pages of files to optimize file I/O
The swap cache is a list of page table entries. This page table entry for a swapped out page and describes which swap file the page is being held in together with its location in the swap file, so that when has to be brought back again we will be having its location in swap file.
It resides on disk.
I'm working on a system that involves some custom hardware and a custom Linux device driver I wrote for the hardware. The system occasionally needs to move large amounts of data very rapidly and therefore my driver dynamically (i.e. when needed) allocates large (1 GB) DMA buffers which are used and then freed when they are no longer needed. To allocate such large buffers I actually allocate a bunch of smaller buffers (256 X 4MB) using dma_alloc_coherent and then map them contiguously into user space using remap_pfn_range. This works very well most of the time.
During testing, after the system has been running test cases for a long time, I sometimes see DMA allocation failures where one of the dma_alloc_coherent calls in my driver fails which causes my application layer software to crash. I was finally able to track down this problem and I discovered that when I see DMA allocation failures the Linux kernel page cache is very full.
For example, on the last failure that I captured the page cache filled 27 GB of the 32 GB of RAM on my system. I suspected that the page cache "fullness" was causing dma_alloc_coherent calls to fail. To test this theory I manually emptied the page cache using:
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
This dropped the size of the cache from 27 GB to 94 MB and I was able to allocate 20+ 1 GB DMA buffers with no issues.
Clearly the page cache is a beneficial thing so I would prefer not to have to completely empty it every time I run out of space when allocating DMA buffers. My questions is this: how can I dynamically shrink the page cache in kernel space such that if a call to dma_alloc_coherent fails I can recover just enough space so that I can retry the call and have it succeed?
My system is x86_64 based running a 3.16.x Linux kernel.
I have found some vague references that suggest what I'm attempting may be possible, for example "These objects are automatically
reclaimed by the kernel when memory is needed elsewhere on the system." (from: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt). But I have not yet found any specifics that indicate how the memory is reclaimed.
Any assistance with this would be greatly appreciated!
TL;DR : Scan for active superblocks and drop references to non-dirty ones until you have reclaimed as much system memory as you need. (or you finally run out of references to active superblocks.)
How to write kernel code to dynamically shrink the fs page-cache,
to recover just enough space so that a subsequent call to dma_alloc_coherent() succeeds?
To answer this question, let us take a look at what the "drop_caches operation" did to reduce the fs page-cache from 27GB to 94MB on your system.
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
invokes
drop_caches_sysctl_handler()
which in turn invokes iterate_supers() and
passes it the pointer to the function drop_pagecache_sb().
What happens next is that iterate_supers() scans for active superblocks and everytime it finds one, it calls drop_pagecache_sb(), passing it a reference to the active superblock.
This iterative procedure continues until references to all the active superblocks are freed from the fs page-cache. This is a non-destructive operation and will only free blocks that are completely unused. Dirty-objects will continue to be in use until written out to disk and are not free-able. If you run sync first to flush them out to disk, the "drop_caches operation" tends to free more memory.
Since you are interested in running this process to reclaim a limited/known amount of memory i.e. what is soon going to be requested using dma_alloc_coherent(), you simply need to implement the above functionality with an additional check at the end of each iteration and abort the superblock scan immediately once the amount of free system memory crosses the desired level.
A couple of points to keep in mind to further optimise this procedure :
Is there a preference for certain block devices over others?
You may want to iterate over active superblocks of the block devices that you do not care about first. If enough memory is not reclaimed, then scan the block devices that you would prefer to retain in the fs page-cache unless absolutely necessary to reclaim required memory. get_active_super() might be of help here.
iterate_supers_type() seems interesting
It allows one to iterate over superblocks of specific file_system_type
Please note that this is a speculative solution based purely on the analysis of existing code within the Linux kernel that you have observed to already solve your problem. Once the above approach is implemented, it will only allow you to control the same i.e. attempt to reclaim fs page-cache memory only to the extent required for your immediate needs.
Technically when certain allocation fails then Kernel will try to free memory.Depending upon memory failures(soft failure/hard failure). Hard failures causes Kernel to enter into direct reclaim path. Direct reclaim is costly operation which might take undefined time to complete and even after that allocation might fail.
Here you have two options:
1) Play with VM settings like dirty_ratio,dirty_background_ratio etc to maintain free ram. see : https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Performance_Tuning_Guide/s-memory-tunables.html
2) Write a kernel daemon, which calls kernel function which handles drop_cache (because drop_cache migh sleep).
Since writes are immediate anyway (copy to kernel buffer and return), what's the advantage of using io_submit for writes?
In fact, it (aio/io_submit) seems worse since you have to allocate the write buffers on the heap and can't use stack-based buffers.
My question is only about writes, not reads.
EDIT: I am talking about relatively small writes (few KB at most), not MB or GB, so buffer copy should not be a big problem.
Copying a buffer into the kernel is not necessarily instantaneous.
First the kernel needs to find a free page. If there is none (which is fairly likely under heavy disk-write pressure), it has to decide to evict one. If it decides to evict a dirty page (instead of evicting your process for instance), it will have to actually write it before it can use that page.
there's a related issue in linux when saturating writing to a slow drive, the page cache fills up with dirty pages backed by a slow drive. Whenever the kernel needs a page, for any reason, it takes a long time to acquire one and the whole system freezes as a result.
The size of each individual write is less relevant than the write pressure of the system. If you have a million small writes already queued up, this may be the one that has to block.
Regarding whether the allocation lives on the stack or the heap is also less relevant. If you want efficient allocation of blocks to write, you can use a dedicated pool allocator (from the heap) and not pay for the general purpose heap allocator.
aio_write() gets around this by not copying the buffer into the kernel at all, it may even be DMAd straight out of your buffer (given the alignment requirements), which means you're likely to save a copy as well.
everyone. I am stuck on the following question.
I am working on a hybrid storage system which uses an ssd as a cache layer for hard disk. To this end, the data read from the hard disk should be written to the ssd to boost the subsequent reads of this data. Since Linux caches data read from disk in the page cache, the writing of data to the ssd can be delayed; however, the pages caching the data may be freed, and accessing the freed pages is not recommended. Here is the question: I have "struct page" pointers pointing to the pages to be written to the ssd. Is there any way to determine whether the page represented by the pointer is valid or not (by valid I mean the cached page can be safely written to the ssd? What will happen if a freed page is accessed via the pointer? Is the data of the freed page the same as that before freeing?
Are you using cleancache module? You should only get valid pages from it and it should remain valid until your callback function finished.
Isn't this a cleancache/frontswap reimplementation? (https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vm/cleancache.txt).
The benefit of existing cleancache code is that it calls your code only just before it frees a page, so before the page resides in RAM, and when there is no space left in RAM for it the kernel calls your code to back it up in tmem (transient memory).
Searching I also found an existing project that seems to do exactly this: http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/:
Bcache is a Linux kernel block layer cache. It allows one or more fast
disk drives such as flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) to act as a
cache for one or more slower hard disk drives.
Bcache patches for the Linux kernel allow one to use SSDs to cache
other block devices. It's analogous to L2Arc for ZFS, but Bcache also
does writeback caching (besides just write through caching), and it's
filesystem agnostic. It's designed to be switched on with a minimum of
effort, and to work well without configuration on any setup. By
default it won't cache sequential IO, just the random reads and writes
that SSDs excel at. It's meant to be suitable for desktops, servers,
high end storage arrays, and perhaps even embedded.
What you are trying to achieve looks like the following:
Before the page is evicted from the pagecache, you want to cache it. This, in concept, is called a Victim cache. You can look for papers around this.
What you need is a way to "pin" the pages targeted for eviction for the duration of the IO. Post IO, you can free the pagecache page.
But, this will delay the eviction, which is possibly needed during memory pressure to create more un-cached pages.
So, one possible solution is to start your caching algorithm a bit before the pagecache eviction starts.
A second possible solution is to set aside a bunch of free pages and exchange the page being evicted form the page cache with a page from the free pool, and cache the evicted page in the background. But, you need to now synchronize with file block deletes, etc
I have a question regarding the writeback of the dirty pages. If a portion of page data is modified, will the writeback write the whole page to the disk, or only the partial page with modified data?
The memory management hardware on x86 systems has a granularity of 4096 bytes. This means: It is not possible to find out which bytes of a 4096-byte page are really changed and which ones are unchanged.
Theoretically the disk driver system could check if bytes have been changed and not write the 512-byte blocks that have not been changed.
However this would mean that - if the blocks are no longer in disk cache memory - the page must be read from hard disk to check if it has changed before writing.
I do not think that Linux would do this in that way because reading the page from disk would cost too much time.
Upon EACH hardware interrupt, the CPU would like to write as much data as possible that the harddisk controller can handle - this size is defined by us as the blksize (or ONE sector, in Linux):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector
https://superuser.com/questions/121252/how-do-i-find-the-hardware-block-read-size-for-my-hard-drive
But waiting too long for SINGLE interrupt for a large file can make the system appear unresponsive, so it is logical to break the chunks into smaller size (like 512bytes) so that the CPU can handle other tasks while transferring each 512 bytes down. Therefore, whether u changed one byte or 511 bytes, so long as it is within that single block, all data get written at the same time. And throughout linux kernel, flagging the blocks as dirty for write or not, all goes by the single unique identifier: sector number, so anything smaller than sector size is too difficult for efficient management.
All these said, don't forget that the harddisk controller itself also has a minimum block size for write operation.