Re: [Caml-list] Memory fragmentation
I replaced call of 'malloc' in 'caml_alloc_for_heap' function to mmap, and 'free' in 'caml_free_for_heap' to unmap. Unused memory is freed after Gc.compaction. On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote: There is a commit dating from a few days ago that might be related to your problem (commit msg was : PR#5389: compaction sometimes leaves a very large heap) -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
[Caml-list] Memory fragmentation
Hi! We have developped a daemon on ocaml using the lwt lib(libev). It processes about 800 requests per second, but it increases to 2 Gb in memory for a hour of work. We have studied the problem for a long time, using mtrace, mallinfo and other tools, and we tried to change GC params. We found out that setting up GC.minor_heap_size=10Mb а major_heap_increment=2Мb will make the daemon grow slower. mallinfо shows that the memory (1,5G) is allocated using mmap (blkhd field in mallinfo struct) and arena size - about 20M In this case, first calls of GC.compact compress the daemon to 200 Mb (live -110Mb) , and mallinfo show decreasing of total size of memory allocated by mmap. The daemon keeps growing, but it allocates the memory to arena (using brk), and calls of GC.compact leads to decrease of heap_bytes to 200M, but arena size (1.5 Gb) does not decrease, just doing less uordblks and more fordblks (fileds I.e., after first calls of GC.compact, the daemon starts using brk much more than mmap, and cant memory given back to the system. If Gc.allocation_policy is first fit, memory usage is stable, and it's grow very little, but worked very slowly. Any suggestions are very welcome. Thanks -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Re: [Caml-list] Memory fragmentation
On 04/20/2012 06:12 PM, SerP wrote: Hi! We have developped a daemon on ocaml using the lwt lib(libev). It processes about 800 requests per second, but it increases to 2 Gb in memory for a hour of work. We have studied the problem for a long time, using mtrace, mallinfo and other tools, and we tried to change GC params. We found out that setting up GC.minor_heap_size=10Mb а major_heap_increment=2Мb will make the daemon grow slower. mallinfо shows that the memory (1,5G) is allocated using mmap (blkhd field in mallinfo struct) and arena size - about 20M In this case, first calls of GC.compact compress the daemon to 200 Mb (live -110Mb) , and mallinfo show decreasing of total size of memory allocated by mmap. The daemon keeps growing, but it allocates the memory to arena (using brk), and calls of GC.compact leads to decrease of heap_bytes to 200M, but arena size (1.5 Gb) does not decrease, just doing less uordblks and more fordblks (fileds I.e., after first calls of GC.compact, the daemon starts using brk much more than mmap, and cant memory given back to the system. Sounds like a fragmentation problem in glibc's heap that causes increased VIRT usage. IIRC glibc has a default threshold of 128k for deciding to use brk() vs mmap(), and OCaml's default major_heap_increment (124k) is just below that, which would explain the behaviour you see, and also explain why using a larger major_heap_increment (2M) improves the situation: brk() cannot free holes, while mmap arenas can. You can use malloc_stats() to check whether OCaml gives back all memory to glibc or not, and you can try to use an alternative malloc implementation (like jemalloc) that might cope better with fragmentation. However this doesn't explain why memory keeps growing after a Gc.compact, unless calls to malloc are mixed between the OCaml runtime, Lwt and libev. If that is the case then maybe it would help to try and allocate memory in the OCaml's runtime by using mmap() directly. Is your application completely single-threaded (since you're using lwt), or do you also use multiple threads? I think that glibc caches mmap-ed areas even if you free them (i.e. they're still mapped into your process but they might be changed via mprotect() to PROT_NONE), which is especially a problem if you use multiple threads. Best regards, --Edwin -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Re: [Caml-list] Memory fragmentation
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:12:12 +0400 SerP serp...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! We have developped a daemon on ocaml using the lwt lib(libev). It processes about 800 requests per second, but it increases to 2 Gb in memory for a hour of work. We have studied the problem for a long time, using mtrace, mallinfo and other tools, and we tried to change GC params. We found out that setting up GC.minor_heap_size=10Mb а major_heap_increment=2Мb will make the daemon grow slower. mallinfо shows that the memory (1,5G) is allocated using mmap (blkhd field in mallinfo struct) and arena size - about 20M In this case, first calls of GC.compact compress the daemon to 200 Mb (live -110Mb) , and mallinfo show decreasing of total size of memory allocated by mmap. The daemon keeps growing, but it allocates the memory to arena (using brk), and calls of GC.compact leads to decrease of heap_bytes to 200M, but arena size (1.5 Gb) does not decrease, just doing less uordblks and more fordblks (fileds I.e., after first calls of GC.compact, the daemon starts using brk much more than mmap, and cant memory given back to the system. Alternative malloc implementation may well be worth a try. I've seen the cases when glibc was constantly growing RSS while tcmalloc was on stable level (and 10x less), guessing due to fragmentation. Maybe related, see PR#5389 for ocaml compaction related issues. Also have a look at http://ygrek.org.ua/p/code/mlvalues.py for the way to peep into ocaml heap at runtime. -- ygrek http://ygrek.org.ua -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
