I want to keep virtual address space reserved in my process for memory that was previously used but is not presently needed. I'm interested in the situation where the host kernel is Linux and it's configured to prevent overcommit (which it does by detailed accounting for all committed memory).
If I just want to prevent the data that my application is no longer using from occupying physical memory or getting swapped to disk (wasting resources either way), I can madvise the kernel that it's unneeded, or mmap new zero pages over top of it. But neither of these approaches will necessarily reduce the amount of memory that counts as committed, which other processes are then prevented from using.
What if I replace the pages with fresh zero pages that are marked read-only? My intent is that they don't count towards committed memory, and further that I can later use mprotect to make them writable, and that it would fail if making them writable would go over the committed memory limit. Is my understanding correct? Will this work?
If you're not using the page (reading or writing to it), it won't be commited to your address space (only reserved).
But your address space is limited, so you can't play as you want/like with it.
See for example ElectricFence which may fail for large number of allocations, because of insertion of "nul page/guard page" (anonymous memory with no access).
Have a look at these thread : "mprotect() failed: Cannot allocate memory" :
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.user/538/focus=976052
On Linux, assuming overcommit has not been disabled, you can use the MAP_NORESERVE flag to mmap, which will ensure that the page in question will not be accounted as allocated memory prior to being accessed. If overcommit has been completely disabled, see below about multiple-mapping pages.
Note that Linux's behavior for zero pages has changed at times in the past; with some kernel versions, simply reading the page would cause it to be allocated. With others, a write is necessary. Note that the protection flags do not cause allocation directly; however they can prevent you from accidentally triggering an allocation. Therefore, for most reliable results you should avoid accessing the page at all by mprotecting with PROT_NONE.
As another, more portable option, you can map the same page at multiple locations. That is, create and open an empty temp file, unlink it, ftruncate to some reasonable number of pages, then mmap repeatedly at offset 0 into the file. This will absolutely guarantee the memory only counts once against your program's memory usage. You can even use MAP_PRIVATE to auto-reallocate it when you write to the page.
This may have higher memory usage than the MAP_NORESERVE technique (both for kernel tracking data, and for the pages of the temp file itself), however, so I would recommend using MAP_NORESERVE instead when available. If you do use this technique, try to make the region being mapped reasonably large (and put it in /dev/shm if on Linux, to avoid actual disk IO). Each individual mmap call will consume a certain amount of (non-swappable) kernel memory to track it, so it's good to keep that count down.
Related
When we malloc memory, only virtual memory is available, and it actually pointed to zero-page. The real physical memory will be allocated when we try to write to the malloced memory, at this moment, there will be copy-on-wright that copy zeros from zero-page to physical memory which mapped by page-fault. My problem is, how/where zero-fill-on demand is implemented in linux source code, I want to disable this functionality to do some test. I guess it may happened in page-fault procedure, rather than brk() or mmap().
Similar topics related to zero-fill-on-demand. ZFOD and COW.
You want to use the MAP_UNINITIALIZED parameter to mmap and enable CONFIG_MMAP_ALLOW_UNINITIALIZED in your kernel compilation.
MAP_UNINITIALIZED (since Linux 2.6.33)
Don't clear anonymous pages. This flag is intended to improve
performance on embedded devices. This flag is honored only if
the kernel was configured with the CONFIG_MMAP_ALLOW_UNINITIAL‐
IZED option. Because of the security implications, that option
is normally enabled only on embedded devices (i.e., devices
where one has complete control of the contents of user memory).
If you want your userspace process to allocate real memory every *alloc call, I think in the next options:
If it is for performance reasons, you can replace all calloc calls for malloc+memset so processes will always have a real memory page. However, the kernel could still be able to merge some memory pages.
Disable memory overcommit so that every malloc will return the page at the moment. This way, your program will not be able to allocate more memory than available (RAM + swap). See https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
My questions are as follows:
I mmap(memory mapping) a file into the virtual memory space.
When I access the first byte of the file using a pointer at the first time, the OS will try to access the data in memory, but it will fails and raises the page fault, because the data doesn't present in memory now. So the OS will swap the data from disk into memory. Finally my access will success.
(question is coming)
When I modify the data(in-memory) and write back into disk file, how could I just free the physical memory for other using, but remain virtual memory for fetching the data back into memory as needed?
It sounds like the page-out and page-in behaviors where the OS know the memory is exhaust, it will swap the LRU(or something like that) memory page into disk(swap files) and free the physical memory for other process, and fetch the evicted data back into memory as needed. But this mechanism is controlled by OS.
For some reasons, I need to control the page-out and page-in behaviors by myself. So how should I do? Hack the kernel?
You can use the madvise system call. Its behaviour is affected by the advice argument; there are many choices for advice and the optimal one should be picked based on the specifics of your application.
The flag MADV_DONTNEED means that the given range of physical backing frames should be unconditionally freed (i.e. paged out). Also:
After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the semantics of
memory access in the specified region are changed: subsequent
accesses of pages in the range will succeed, but will result
in either repopulating the memory contents from the up-to-date
contents of the underlying mapped file (for shared file
mappings, shared anonymous mappings, and shmem-based
techniques such as System V shared memory segments) or zero-
fill-on-demand pages for anonymous private mappings.
This could be useful if you're absolutely certain that it will be very long until you access the same position again.
However it might not be necessary to force the kernel to actually page out; instead another possibility, if you're accessing the mapping sequentially is to use madvise with MADV_SEQUENTIAL to tell kernel that you'd access your memory mapping mostly sequentially:
Expect page references in sequential order. (Hence, pages in the given range can be aggressively read ahead, and may be freed soon after they are accessed.)
or MADV_RANDOM
Expect page references in random order. (Hence, read ahead may be less useful than normally.)
These are not as aggressive as explicitly calling MADV_DONTNEED to page out. (Of course you can combine these with MADV_DONTNEED as well)
In recent kernel versions there is also the MADV_FREE flag which will lazily free the page frames; they will stay mapped in if enough memory is available, but are reclaimed by the kernel if the memory pressure grows.
You can checout mlock+munlock to lock/unlock the pages. This will give you control over pages being swapped out.
You need to have CAP_IPC_LOCK capability to perform this operation though.
Let's say I allocate a buffer using mmap in C. Is there any linux operation I can use to make sure that this buffer has been paged into memory and there is an entry for this buffer in page table. I want this because I see some page faults with my application even my memory is much larger than the application requirement. I am using CentOS 7.
Pass MAP_POPULATE as a flag to the mmap call. That's precisely what it's there for. It won't guarantee the pages don't page out later under memory pressure, but it will page them in at mmap time if possible. Quoting the man page:
MAP_POPULATE (since Linux 2.5.46)
Populate (prefault) page tables for a mapping. For a file mapping, this causes read-ahead on the file. Later accesses to the mapping will not be blocked by page faults. MAP_POPULATE is only supported for private mappings since Linux 2.6.23.
If you really wanted to force stuff to be locked into memory, you could also try passing the MAP_LOCKED flag (which mlocks the memory preventing page out), but this is dangerous since it thwarts memory management and as a result, the cap on mlock-ed pages is often quite low to avoid causing problems.
i need to have reliable measurement of allocated memory in a linux process. I've been looking into mallinfo but i've read that it is deprecated. What is the state of the art alternative for this sort of statistics?
basically i'm interested in at least two numbers:
number (and size) of allocated memory blocks/pages from the kernel by any malloc or whatever implementation uses the C library of choice
(optional but still important) number of allocated memory by userspace code (via malloc, new, etc.) minus the deallocated memory by it (via free, delete, etc.)
one possibility i have is to override malloc calls with LD_PRELOAD, but it might introduce an unwanted overhead at runtime, also it might not interact properly with other libraries i'm using that also rely on LD_PRELOAD aop-ness.
another possibility i've read is with rusage.
To be clear, this is NOT for debugging purposes, the memory usage is intrinsic feature of the application (similar to Mathematica or Matlab that display the amount of memory used, only that more precise at the block-level)
For this purpose - a "memory usage" introspection feature within an application - the most appropriate interface is malloc_hook(3). These are GNU extensions that allow you to hook every malloc(), realloc() and free() call, maintaining your statistics.
To see how much memory is mapped by your application from the kernel's point of view, you can read and collate the information in the /proc/self/smaps pseudofile. This also lets you see how much of each allocation is resident, swapped, shared/private, clean/dirty etc.
/proc/PID/status contains a few useful pieces of information (try running cat /proc/$$/status for example).
VmPeak is the largest your process's virtual memory space ever became during its execution. This includes all pages mapped into your process, including executable pages, mmap'ed files, stack, and heap.
VmSize is the current size of your process's virtual memory space.
VmRSS is the Resident Set Size of your process; i.e., how much of it is taking up physical RAM right now. (A typical process will have lots of stuff mapped that it never uses, like most of the C library. If no processes need a page, eventually it will be evicted and become non-resident. RSS measures the pages that remain resident and are mapped into your process.)
VmHWM is the High Water Mark of VmRSS; i.e. the highest that number has been during the lifetime of the process.
VmData is the size of your process's "data" segment; i.e., roughly its heap usage. Note that small blocks on which you have done malloc and then free will still be in use from the kernel's point of view; large blocks will actually be returned to the kernel when freed. (If memory serves, "large" means greater than 128k for current glibc.) This is probably the closest to what you are looking for.
These measurements are probably better than trying to track malloc and free, since they indicate what is "really going on" from a system-wide point of view. Just because you have called free() on some memory, that does not mean it has been returned to the system for other processes to use.
POSIX environments provide at least two ways of accessing files. There's the standard system calls open(), read(), write(), and friends, but there's also the option of using mmap() to map the file into virtual memory.
When is it preferable to use one over the other? What're their individual advantages that merit including two interfaces?
mmap is great if you have multiple processes accessing data in a read only fashion from the same file, which is common in the kind of server systems I write. mmap allows all those processes to share the same physical memory pages, saving a lot of memory.
mmap also allows the operating system to optimize paging operations. For example, consider two programs; program A which reads in a 1MB file into a buffer creating with malloc, and program B which mmaps the 1MB file into memory. If the operating system has to swap part of A's memory out, it must write the contents of the buffer to swap before it can reuse the memory. In B's case any unmodified mmap'd pages can be reused immediately because the OS knows how to restore them from the existing file they were mmap'd from. (The OS can detect which pages are unmodified by initially marking writable mmap'd pages as read only and catching seg faults, similar to Copy on Write strategy).
mmap is also useful for inter process communication. You can mmap a file as read / write in the processes that need to communicate and then use synchronization primitives in the mmap'd region (this is what the MAP_HASSEMAPHORE flag is for).
One place mmap can be awkward is if you need to work with very large files on a 32 bit machine. This is because mmap has to find a contiguous block of addresses in your process's address space that is large enough to fit the entire range of the file being mapped. This can become a problem if your address space becomes fragmented, where you might have 2 GB of address space free, but no individual range of it can fit a 1 GB file mapping. In this case you may have to map the file in smaller chunks than you would like to make it fit.
Another potential awkwardness with mmap as a replacement for read / write is that you have to start your mapping on offsets of the page size. If you just want to get some data at offset X you will need to fixup that offset so it's compatible with mmap.
And finally, read / write are the only way you can work with some types of files. mmap can't be used on things like pipes and ttys.
One area where I found mmap() to not be an advantage was when reading small files (under 16K). The overhead of page faulting to read the whole file was very high compared with just doing a single read() system call. This is because the kernel can sometimes satisify a read entirely in your time slice, meaning your code doesn't switch away. With a page fault, it seemed more likely that another program would be scheduled, making the file operation have a higher latency.
mmap has the advantage when you have random access on big files. Another advantage is that you access it with memory operations (memcpy, pointer arithmetic), without bothering with the buffering. Normal I/O can sometimes be quite difficult when using buffers when you have structures bigger than your buffer. The code to handle that is often difficult to get right, mmap is generally easier. This said, there are certain traps when working with mmap.
As people have already mentioned, mmap is quite costly to set up, so it is worth using only for a given size (varying from machine to machine).
For pure sequential accesses to the file, it is also not always the better solution, though an appropriate call to madvise can mitigate the problem.
You have to be careful with alignment restrictions of your architecture(SPARC, itanium), with read/write IO the buffers are often properly aligned and do not trap when dereferencing a casted pointer.
You also have to be careful that you do not access outside of the map. It can easily happen if you use string functions on your map, and your file does not contain a \0 at the end. It will work most of the time when your file size is not a multiple of the page size as the last page is filled with 0 (the mapped area is always in the size of a multiple of your page size).
In addition to other nice answers, a quote from Linux system programming written by Google's expert Robert Love:
Advantages of mmap( )
Manipulating files via mmap( ) has a handful of advantages over the
standard read( ) and write( ) system calls. Among them are:
Reading from and writing to a memory-mapped file avoids the
extraneous copy that occurs when using the read( ) or write( ) system
calls, where the data must be copied to and from a user-space buffer.
Aside from any potential page faults, reading from and writing to a memory-mapped file does not incur any system call or context switch
overhead. It is as simple as accessing memory.
When multiple processes map the same object into memory, the data is shared among all the processes. Read-only and shared writable
mappings are shared in their entirety; private writable mappings have
their not-yet-COW (copy-on-write) pages shared.
Seeking around the mapping involves trivial pointer manipulations. There is no need for the lseek( ) system call.
For these reasons, mmap( ) is a smart choice for many applications.
Disadvantages of mmap( )
There are a few points to keep in mind when using mmap( ):
Memory mappings are always an integer number of pages in size. Thus, the difference between the size of the backing file and an
integer number of pages is "wasted" as slack space. For small files, a
significant percentage of the mapping may be wasted. For example, with
4 KB pages, a 7 byte mapping wastes 4,089 bytes.
The memory mappings must fit into the process' address space. With a 32-bit address space, a very large number of various-sized mappings
can result in fragmentation of the address space, making it hard to
find large free contiguous regions. This problem, of course, is much
less apparent with a 64-bit address space.
There is overhead in creating and maintaining the memory mappings and associated data structures inside the kernel. This overhead is
generally obviated by the elimination of the double copy mentioned in
the previous section, particularly for larger and frequently accessed
files.
For these reasons, the benefits of mmap( ) are most greatly realized
when the mapped file is large (and thus any wasted space is a small
percentage of the total mapping), or when the total size of the mapped
file is evenly divisible by the page size (and thus there is no wasted
space).
Memory mapping has a potential for a huge speed advantage compared to traditional IO. It lets the operating system read the data from the source file as the pages in the memory mapped file are touched. This works by creating faulting pages, which the OS detects and then the OS loads the corresponding data from the file automatically.
This works the same way as the paging mechanism and is usually optimized for high speed I/O by reading data on system page boundaries and sizes (usually 4K) - a size for which most file system caches are optimized to.
An advantage that isn't listed yet is the ability of mmap() to keep a read-only mapping as clean pages. If one allocates a buffer in the process's address space, then uses read() to fill the buffer from a file, the memory pages corresponding to that buffer are now dirty since they have been written to.
Dirty pages can not be dropped from RAM by the kernel. If there is swap space, then they can be paged out to swap. But this is costly and on some systems, such as small embedded devices with only flash memory, there is no swap at all. In that case, the buffer will be stuck in RAM until the process exits, or perhaps gives it back withmadvise().
Non written to mmap() pages are clean. If the kernel needs RAM, it can simply drop them and use the RAM the pages were in. If the process that had the mapping accesses it again, it cause a page fault the kernel re-loads the pages from the file they came from originally. The same way they were populated in the first place.
This doesn't require more than one process using the mapped file to be an advantage.