| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:55:08 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> To: Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: That greedy Linux VM cache [Adding linux-mm to the CC] On Fri 31-01-14 00:58:16, Igor Podlesny wrote: > Hello! > > Probably every Linux newcomer's going to have concerns regarding > low free memory and hear an explanation from Linux old fellows that's > actually there's plenty of -- it's just cached, but when it's needed > for applications it's gonna be used -- on demand. I also thought so > until recently I noticed that even when free memory's is almost > exhausted (~ 75 Mib), and processes are in sleep_on_page_killable, the This means that the page has to be written back in order to be dropped. How much dirty memory you have (comparing to the total size of the page cache)? What does your /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio say? How fast is your storage? Also, is this 32b or 64b system? > cache is somewhat like ~ 500 MiB and it's not going to return back > what it's gained. Naturally, vm.drop_caches 3 doesn't squeeze it as > well. That drama has been happening on rather > outdated-but-yet-still-has-2GiB-of-RAM notebook with kernel from 3.10 > till 3.12.9 (3.13 is the first release for a long time which simply > freezes the notebook so cold, that SysRq_B's not working, but that's > another story). Everything RAM demanding just yet crawls, load average > is getting higher and there's no paging out, but on going disk mostly > _read_ and a bit write activity. If vm.swaPPineSS not 0, it's swapping > out, but not much, right now I ran Chromium (in addition to long-run > Firefox) and only 32 MiB went to swap, load avg. ~ 7 > > Again: 25 % is told (by top, free and finally /proc/meminfo) to be > cached, but kinda greedy. > > I came across similar issue report: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg11723.html but still > questions remain: > > * How to analyze it? slabtop doesn't mention even 100 MiB of slab snapshoting /proc/meminfo and /proc/vmstat every second or two while your load is bad might tell us more. > * Why that's possible? That is hard to tell withou some numbers. But it might be possible that you are seeing the same issue as reported and fixed here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139060103406327&w=2 Especially when you are using tmpfs (e.g. as a backing storage for /tmp) > * The system is on Btrfs but /home is on XFS, so disk I/O might be > related to text segment paging? But anyway this leads us to question, > hey, there's 500 MiB free^Wcached. > > While I'm thinking about moving system back to XFS... > > P. S. While writing these, swapped ~ 100 MiB, and cache reduced(!) > to 377 MiB, Firefox is mostly in "D" -- sleep_on_page_killable, so is > Chrome, load avg. ~ 7. I had to close Skype to be able to finish that > letter, and cached mem. now is 439 MiB. :) I know it's time to > upgrade, but hey, cached memory is free memory, right? > > -- > End of message. Next message? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists