I am writing a large file to disk from a user-mode application. In parallel to it, I am writing one or more smaller files. The large file won't be read back anytime soon, but the small files could be. I have enough RAM for the application + smaller files, but not enough for the large file. Can I tell the OS not to keep parts of the large file in cache after they are written to disk so that more cache is available for smaller files? I still want writes to the large file be fast enough.
Can I tell the OS not to keep parts of the large file in cache ?
Yes, you probably want to use some system call like posix_fadvise(2) or madvise(2). In weird cases, you might use readahead(2) or userfaultfd(2) or Linux-specific flags to mmap(2). Or very cleverly handle SIGSEGV (see signal(7), signal-safety(7) and eventfd(2) and signalfd(2)) You'll need to write your C program doing that.
But I am not sure that it is worth your development efforts. In many cases, the behavior of a recent Linux kernel is good enough.
See also proc(5) and linuxatemyram.com
You many want to read the GC handbook. It is relevant to your concerns
Conbsider studying for inspiration the source code of existing open-source software such as GCC, Qt, RefPerSys, PostGreSQL, GNU Bash, etc...
Most of the time, it is simply not worth the effort to explicitly code something to manage your page cache.
I guess that mount(2) options in your /etc/fstab file (see fstab(5)...) are in practice more important. Or changing or tuning your file system (e.g. ext4(5), xfs(5)..). Or read(2)-ing in large pieces (1Mbytes).
Play with dd(1) to measure. See also time(7)
Most applications are not disk-bound, and for those who are disk bound, renting more disk space is cheaper that adding and debugging extra code.
don't forget to benchmark, e.g. using strace(1) and time(1)
PS. Don't forget your developer costs. They often are a lot above the price of a RAM module (or of some faster SSD disk).
I am trying to measure the effects of adding memory to a LAMP server.
How can I find which processes try to read from the Linux buffer cache, but miss and read from disk instead?
SystemTap is one of the best ways to do this, but fair warning it's difficult to get a great answer. The kernel simply doesn't provide this data directly. You have to infer it based on how many times the system requested a read and how many times a disk was read from. Usually they line up fairly well and you can attribute the difference to the VFS cache, but not always. One problem is LVM- LVM is a "block device", but so is the underlying disk(s), so if you're not careful it's easy to double-count the disk reads.
A while back I took a stab at it and wrote this:
https://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/WSCacheHitRate
I do not claim that it is perfect, but it works better than nothing, and usually generates reasonable output as long as the environment is fairly "normal". It does attempt to account for LVM in a fairly crude way.
I'm creating a web application running on a Linux server. The application is constantly accessing a 250K file - it loads it in memory, reads it and sends back some info to the user. Since this file is read all the time, my client is suggesting to use something like memcache to cache it to memory, presumably because it will make read operations faster.
However, I'm thinking that the Linux filesystem is probably already caching the file in memory since it's accessed frequently. Is that right? In your opinion, would memcache provide a real improvement? Or is it going to do the same thing that Linux is already doing?
I'm not really familiar with neither Linux nor memcache, so I would really appreciate if someone could clarify this.
Yes, if you do not modify the file each time you open it.
Linux will hold the file's information in copy-on-write pages in memory, and "loading" the file into memory should be very fast (page table swap at worst).
Edit: Though, as cdhowie points out, there is no 'linux filesystem'. However, I believe the relevant code is in linux's memory management, and is therefore independent of the filesystem in question. If you're curious, you can read in the linux source about handling vm_area_struct objects in linux/mm/mmap.c, mainly.
As people have mentioned, mmap is a good solution here.
But, one 250k file is very small. You might want to read it in and put it in some sort of memory structure that matches what you want to send back to the user on startup. Ie, if it is a text file an array of lines might be a good choice, etc.
The file should be cached, but make sure the noatime option is set on the mount, otherwise the access time will attempt to be saved to the file, invalidating the cache.
Yes, definitely. It will keep accessed files in memory indefinitely, unless something else needs the memory.
You can control this behaviour (to some extent) with the fadvise system call. See its "man" page for more details.
A read/write system call will still normally need to copy the data, so if you see a real bottleneck doing this, consider using mmap() which can avoid the copy, by mapping the cache pages directly into the process.
I guess putting that file into ramdisk (tmpfs) may make enough advantage without big modifications. Unless you are really serious about response time in microseconds unit.
I'm working on an embedded linux system.
I tried to use inotify to monitor changes. But when I tried to monitor a huge numbers of folders (let's say more than 6000 folders), inotify uses a lot of memory (about 25-30MB). As you all know, 25-30MB in embedded system is considered to be large...
My questions are;
is this normal?
is anyone know how to tune this?
any alternative to monitor a huge numbers of folders without adding watch in each folder?
As far as I know a recursive watch is not possible with an unpatched Linux kernel. See also https://superuser.com/questions/118642/recursive-filesystem-notifications-inotify-for-ubuntu-karmic-koala . Maybe fanotify would work for you, but it needs a kernel patch.
Look into using Auditd.
There is also a user space file system called loggedfs, but I couldn't get that to work.
It's inevitable to monitor directories recursively when using inotify.
reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inotify#Limitations
In order to improve inotify(7) performance(reduce memory usage, maybe), my suggestion is:
Whenever you start watching a directory, just focus on types of inotify_event that interest you(as less as possible), you can adjust the mask argument of inotify_add_watch(2) function to achieve this. Setting the mask argument value to IN_ALL_EVENTS to monitor all kinds to inotify_event is sometimes unnecessary.
Hope this helps.
Is it possible to 'hibernate' a process in linux?
Just like 'hibernate' in laptop, I would to write all the memory used by a process to disk, free up the RAM. And then later on, I can 'resume the process', i.e, reading all the data from memory and put it back to RAM and I can continue with my process?
I used to maintain CryoPID, which is a program that does exactly what you are talking about. It writes the contents of a program's address space, VDSO, file descriptor references and states to a file that can later be reconstructed. CryoPID started when there were no usable hooks in Linux itself and worked entirely from userspace (actually, it still does work, depending on your distro / kernel / security settings).
Problems were (indeed) sockets, pending RT signals, numerous X11 issues, the glibc caching getpid() implementation amongst many others. Randomization (especially VDSO) turned out to be insurmountable for the few of us working on it after Bernard walked away from it. However, it was fun and became the topic of several masters thesis.
If you are just contemplating a program that can save its running state and re-start directly into that state, its far .. far .. easier to just save that information from within the program itself, perhaps when servicing a signal.
I'd like to put a status update here, as of 2014.
The accepted answer suggests CryoPID as a tool to perform Checkpoint/Restore, but I found the project to be unmantained and impossible to compile with recent kernels.
Now, I found two actively mantained projects providing the application checkpointing feature.
The first, the one I suggest 'cause I have better luck running it, is CRIU
that performs checkpoint/restore mainly in userspace, and requires the kernel option CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE enabled to work.
Checkpoint/Restore In Userspace, or CRIU (pronounced kree-oo, IPA: /krɪʊ/, Russian: криу), is a software tool for Linux operating system. Using this tool, you can freeze a running application (or part of it) and checkpoint it to a hard drive as a collection of files. You can then use the files to restore and run the application from the point it was frozen at. The distinctive feature of the CRIU project is that it is mainly implemented in user space.
The latter is DMTCP; quoting from their main page:
DMTCP (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) is a tool to transparently checkpoint the state of multiple simultaneous applications, including multi-threaded and distributed applications. It operates directly on the user binary executable, without any Linux kernel modules or other kernel modifications.
There is also a nice Wikipedia page on the argument: Application_checkpointing
The answers mentioning ctrl-z are really talking about stopping the process with a signal, in this case SIGTSTP. You can issue a stop signal with kill:
kill -STOP <pid>
That will suspend execution of the process. It won't immediately free the memory used by it, but as memory is required for other processes the memory used by the stopped process will be gradually swapped out.
When you want to wake it up again, use
kill -CONT <pid>
The more complicated solutions, like CryoPID, are really only needed if you want the stopped process to be able to survive a system shutdown/restart - it doesn't sound like you need that.
Linux Kernel has now partially implemented the checkpoint/restart futures:https://ckpt.wiki.kernel.org/, the status is here.
Some useful information are in the lwn(linux weekly net):
http://lwn.net/Articles/375855/ http://lwn.net/Articles/412749/ ......
So the answer is "YES"
The issue is restoring the streams - files and sockets - that the program has open.
When your whole OS hibernates, the local files and such can obviously be restored. Network connections don't, but then the code that accesses the internet is typically more error checking and such and survives the error conditions (or ought to).
If you did per-program hibernation (without application support), how would you handle open files? What if another process accesses those files in the interim? etc?
Maintaining state when the program is not loaded is going to be difficult.
Simply suspending the threads and letting it get swapped to disk would have much the same effect?
Or run the program in a virtual machine and let the VM handle suspension.
Short answer is "yes, but not always reliably". Check out CryoPID:
http://cryopid.berlios.de/
Open files will indeed be the most common problem. CryoPID states explicitly:
Open files and offsets are restored.
Temporary files that have been
unlinked and are not accessible on the
filesystem are always saved in the
image. Other files that do not exist
on resume are not yet restored.
Support for saving file contents for
such situations is planned.
The same issues will also affect TCP connections, though CryoPID supports tcpcp for connection resuming.
I extended Cryopid producing a package called Cryopid2 available from SourceForge. This can
migrate a process as well as hibernating it (along with any open files and sockets - data
in sockets/pipes is sucked into the process on hibernation and spat back into these when
process is restarted).
The reason I have not been active with this project is I am not a kernel developer - both
this (and/or the original cryopid) need to get someone on board who can get them running
with the lastest kernels (e.g. Linux 3.x).
The Cryopid method does work - and is probably the best solution to general purpose process
hibernation/migration in Linux I have come across.
The short answer is "yes." You might start by looking at this for some ideas: ELF executable reconstruction from a core image (http://vx.netlux.org/lib/vsc03.html)
As others have noted, it's difficult for the OS to provide this functionality, because the application needs to have some error checking builtin to handle broken streams.
However, on a side note, some programming languages and tools that use virtual machines explicitly support this functionality, such as the Self programming language.
This is sort of the ultimate goal of clustered operating system. Mathew Dillon puts a lot of effort to implement something like this in his Dragonfly BSD project.
adding another workaround: you can use virtualbox. run your applications in a regular virtual machine and simply "save the machine state" whenever you want.
I know this is not an answer, but I thought it could be useful when there are no real options.
if for any reason you don't like virtualbox, vmware and Qemu are as good.
Ctrl-Z increases the chances the process's pages will be swapped, but it doesn't free the process's resources completely. The problem with freeing a process's resources completely is that things like file handles, sockets are kernel resources the process gets to use, but doesn't know how to persist on its own. So Ctrl-Z is as good as it gets.
There was some research on checkpoint/restore for Linux back in 2.2 and 2.4 days, but it never made it past prototype. It is possible (with the caveats described in the other answers) for certain values of possible - I you can write a kernel module to do it, it is possible. But for the common value of possible (can I do it from the shell on a commercial Linux distribution), it is not yet possible.
There's ctrl+z in linux, but i'm not sure it offers the features you specified. I suspect you asked this question since it doesn't