From nobody Fri Jan 28 07:40:46 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C001972BA0 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 07:40:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) Received: from sonic301-20.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (sonic301-20.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.137.64.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JlTsM4HLRz3JNS for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 07:40:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1643355654; bh=AqXbfveWzq60ydqov7Tll8pFjXiLrmOhXaBnJshgo+U=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=H63NWpkicrXvhnmBh7Pap5PkEvcBSDAvNYpgdfHMAgcxFrHUwPb4dRpb5V3b1L96OJ8SfAJOdL/EYNpPtF2dy4CgT5FlZS8NEDU3eLYMzX509mx2+T+ZVBrXMqtfHyjL39rN5lYyJ7pBaSByOhZYWrjRPwMdEyfY7lSJxnH7Z34WxQrq3hd+FdOFurYT22FAMNSWe+RbOFT59jn2SGZOFzlMInnUpwQPLtkRG5u+Sg/JzWx8w9qPI9+ucJkJTYO2poBrhoyYAYz+eZBVZkIkf96mzMtZ0kv3LQ/ht/p51QGc7rK8xkbI6uqUAS3Z9gK2xKWj6lfu1NlrYdvWy9Q4JA== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1643355654; bh=GE8gnfi8HdxlUmn+Pd/BRSs1jAtoIZyQxHbIqmh6eus=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Subject:From:Date:To:From:Subject; b=NpA6A27Bok4pzznnjHPicmjuMfXnX70TuTTlp/romnLmkP493bkAdpFnubqo0Tt9ZuF4RDc2IS4nvqSzxbRbXDDBIXIWElM67dh8vb27aSPDVnpiq2jMxMPDV0aoz2324L0XEUsaF3eiN85jPY9du2+mwNykGPmAS2xQ4hnmv71E5jFVnbDZRDJabdit5uhGY0VDIZT9uriH9Xx84bTCur0+kv4PUg/v8HkTyCryZnrC3eVzKAy1p/GuKi4sogbGc55iIbxLdgeP/g8PFWrCLdO9bNKkUtRyUVu79nXdrR5M0McbtzE2njp3tKhn9hUwpASNMtxNB0neZrW0mBRkUg== X-YMail-OSG: dzGLHY4VM1lOaXltYivZNXvtaNaYy5tEctJ9RgCp2xQfZ3msnPNVItHnpBOeUtn kmWqfi_RLTxcmYpx4QSsrms4fj2z_VoNjmUlWplNWBshEJBZsC6XiXdZNLRqjNHg8d8BB2k2y2Es VZxgj19Q_P_qjcCRUxBU4r4H3ISr7EB7f7UBCm35puN1m7X6S8mMIeNkcvKtYtK8I7SNx3QzUUtl 7GMargfeil7gGdeZVGRAcMj9UUw9pTrl47d5wNCs05Wd1XYl.JiELiAf0tTlvBOvjc3dhghC8In3 Vyw_Oo0xdSK78PkjilaQbQsAdXRW89o2H_12YivfVxlLV43ok69SA8WkAHmwX8jUGdm4QUOHtlpO qUerQEPyROtVLb8Iqx1ppZWV.bv2dcfDB.VOQregBmlYY6fKXIm2IbboXFRKsVHBdriqTN_wflOC U499XNGyHgyc3CfFeTUjK5yoi7MeisRR5sQx9HrjGo.C1cJWDrmLLcj3dhbo_RKyxs7BuEfOc2NH m9og3_H35ePBTAXOX.l2wT4yF.sKJKMNin71YvI_gG4tFGHtn7ryySNbTGEhOAFmvt3RfvAP7HRH z0XZemOspbxTRmeDYKTD4fGkyULnYGi0wMapDwhkAL2KZXubTxRPN_ChFmg0eYG5rCtpg5hFzszU agFWHIhAUMTVaqOJx_dUEvXaH3bbgxwFM7REtsmVBxRaVvVrHaIppNMdz2jVgyqEYP_taUF1fXHS 83qqk.IcS1syJwHltga2tXGT_i46Ph0teC1YEYwzBDU8uL3Uhs8s.h2vi85Q5S3tRP56ZUb0rQZO dhYMDmA6yeVrWv1wFQ5YguymKPPSE37z7ZUPugJuSftHRoMMVSUahukbhc3eVAg3EvKd471wEmRl PfLzA4mNjXC5so7cENHuOS7ZAwNRRBc_R2COhpww3uNJvPo7nYapi2KoiZGAL_qGtDdc6sTRpIxM hDfVF3GEoncAmsW8RjhU.0798FAS1EVnHY54NHDtWXDQLJqmifH3SCJDNn0BehJWSgNJRdLVkBG4 aobAxSucptDM6gVPnCA4OztasBcV6usCKrCCeO6QSS3AQZt1hSVkk05.PODu__KDuXeQhejokBBP qIJfr7H17Lv2gRY4L6fnZapUKCtMgWI71dNdSVy8cFZCawngy9AZ41QPaWds7s.crxIHQVbytXk6 7viAeQ9vS1hiCJLQHnBSS8wfdqturgUgKbpoSQ6QvMstIYp.prbAimroEpkdxojn8RAdt.UX39en qMup7fq3E8KUDI6MxZjtmeW9qDV3SoAmzLsO4Qo.cKme.C7ogQ1_U7s3HRlYkGqJ.PEvBjcyGxyW cCEVsZsiwY9Jrf2RCcsGUTWwHcDN4dsPHuZ8cUxODYARkiG.K9h8NppdB3yLn9vlkSh2xn1aNERz H0qdSW0.IEzVNH41J6X9VAVYDtgOPwSLF_PmJlzmFjUZGokqQb2hKXiOnFBiO7TtFlPJ0R5yP9gm O7g_Id1yJizx8dofslb9ZlUPYH_pBcOXyCoCbvURwc26xbZ8ryTY9whVTfiyonln2e12aKE7doX9 WsshGCO4CdHQqi4lp7ZF96_oj2DGi.95cDAXk3jMF0rnMYzewNpcYBMBEtEfDwgxm7L30GxOaOr3 3MUV0cS0cHdVUTCfYWJkDwmpwNvO9y3c7BsYIajHHcCRzf8.UCm6FG0XwS69FD3DsiZCyiEiJho. XrHdV5DnEnMHI87BI.8U41Gw5K.wLF9G7DXm7DegxkluVQC5jND_3NN1wnwFGfTZXTfzNgUAEwCA bZ6YhEqA.MftZv9Qb3yi98hoe9ZOI6UxZqP4IiFezXW3e.6qCskHsz9xovDEoBJLXPzByoNk4B4X ywzTzPbut4gWFZy5C7Vp9Yu1OJBxtRNwVzaKdtrnHEPazGzxYhiVYPh3x6fXqwZzvjIS18CSb.bq YsG98RHp1OaPtGfIISIcRBkTepZjviwE8bzPOcga.LhLaxoYL7Y98JvitxM9e4kxzYsbnBOQS97i 1oGPK2ijcVxlbpMCV7K2DM8Mq3aAu2jQuKUIgJe.OGq3u4Mz0_TkGmG79TZ7w5zthBlsKYhSJikt lg8OET2o63K3Li_NHhHXGZxO.59xm0toy5Njni7ckB194IAMNdbrcBL_NcAfWlbuX53afZhyc1YC gDM5LoVIifzKMfuDMRwIgNodQ1aYQQMmu_6I2rNzphkCloqdOa.kmdudBx.D7dKeNAIBpyMV4z21 0f71ZkjNraETDFSFqQKqZcGTcfTFNqZijWPwK7Ciw.5cGwVDpx1eOUuOfvxc1rYQOlz3Y6Foqklw cbScQJ8d20n_b0vD_ X-Sonic-MF: Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic301.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 07:40:54 +0000 Received: by kubenode523.mail-prod1.omega.bf1.yahoo.com (VZM Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID e745345ca6d9965b1dc0f2d24813e5a1; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 07:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arm List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: devel/llvm13 failed to reclaim memory on 8 GB Pi4 running -current [UFS context: used the whole swap space too] From: Mark Millard In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 23:40:46 -0800 Cc: Free BSD , Mark Johnston Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9771EB33-037E-403E-8A77-7E8E98DCF375@yahoo.com> References: <20220127164512.GA51200@www.zefox.net> <2C7E741F-4703-4E41-93FE-72E1F16B60E2@yahoo.com> <20220127214801.GA51710@www.zefox.net> <5E861D46-128A-4E09-A3CF-736195163B17@yahoo.com> <20220127233048.GA51951@www.zefox.net> <6528ED25-A3C6-4277-B951-1F58ADA2D803@yahoo.com> <10B4E2F0-6219-4674-875F-A7B01CA6671C@yahoo.com> <54CD0806-3902-4B9C-AA30-5ED003DE4D41@yahoo.com> To: bob prohaska X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JlTsM4HLRz3JNS X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=yahoo.com header.s=s2048 header.b=H63NWpki; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=yahoo.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of marklmi@yahoo.com designates 98.137.64.146 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=marklmi@yahoo.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.50 / 15.00]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ptr:yahoo.com]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yahoo.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[yahoo.com,reject]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36647, ipnet:98.137.64.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[yahoo.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[yahoo.com:s=s2048]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[98.137.64.146:from]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[98.137.64.146:from]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N [Mark Johnston included: handling was different than under ZFS.] On 2022-Jan-27, at 22:35, Mark Millard wrote: > [Back to omitting Mark Johnston.] >=20 > On 2022-Jan-27, at 22:00, Mark Millard wrote: >=20 >> On 2022-Jan-27, at 21:55, Mark Millard wrote: >>=20 >>> On 2022-Jan-27, at 17:43, Mark Millard wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 2022-Jan-27, at 15:30, bob prohaska wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:21:44PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Okay. I just started a poudriere bulk devel/llvm13 build >>>>>> in a ZFS context: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> . . . >>>>>> [00:00:37] Pkg: +BE_AMDGPU -BE_FREEBSD +BE_NATIVE -BE_STANDARD = +BE_WASM +CLANG +DOCS +EXTRAS -FLANG +LIT +LLD +LLDB +MLIR -OPENMP = -PYCLANG >>>>>> [00:00:37] New: +BE_AMDGPU -BE_FREEBSD -BE_NATIVE +BE_STANDARD = +BE_WASM +CLANG +DOCS +EXTRAS +FLANG +LIT +LLD +LLDB +MLIR +OPENMP = +PYCLANG >>>>>> . . . >>>>>> [00:01:27] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm13 | = llvm13-13.0.0_3 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Is this ARM hardware, or an emulator? >>>>=20 >>>> 8 GiByte RPi4B, USB3 NVMe media with a ZFS partition. The content >>>> is a slightly modified copy of the HoneyComb's PCIe slot Optane >>>> media. >>>>=20 >>>> The UFS-based 8 GiByte RPi4B is also based on copying from the >>>> same Optane media, both for the system materials and various >>>> ports/packages/pouriere related materials. (Not, necessarily, >>>> other things.) >>>>=20 >>>>> I've been using plain old make in /usr/ports/devel,=20 >>>>> might it be informative to try a poudriere build as well? >>>>=20 >>>> The Pkg:, New:, and llvm13 lines I listed are poudriere(-devel) >>>> output. I am doing my builds via poudriere. ALLOW_PARALLEL_JOBS=3D >>>> and USE_TMPFS=3D"data" in use. >>>>=20 >>>> I have a context in which almost all prerequisites had already >>>> been built. (The change in options lead to 2 very small ports >>>> to build before devel/llvm13's started in a builder.) >>>>=20 >>>> (You might not have a jail that already has the prerequisites.) >>>>=20 >>>>> One would expect the added overhead to increase memory use. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Well, from the context I started in, only devel/llvm13 is being >>>> built once it starts. Once it gets to the build phase (after >>>> dependencies and such are set up), there is not much overhead >>>> because the only activity is the one builder and it is only >>>> building llvm13 --via make in the builder. At the end there >>>> would be extra activity as poudriere finishes up. During the >>>> build phase, I only expect minor overhead from poudriere >>>> monitoring the build logs and such. >>>>=20 >>>> I expect that the mere fact that a poudriere jail is in use >>>> for the builder to execute in does not contribute to >>>> significantly increasing the system's memory use or changing >>>> the system's memory use pattern. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> There are some other differences my context. The instances of >>>> main [so: 14] are non-debug builds (but with symbols). The >>>> builds are optimized for the RPi4B (and others) via use of >>>> -mcpu=3Dcortex-a72 usage. My /usr/main-src/ does have some >>>> personal changes in it. (Some messaging about the kills is >>>> part of that.) >>>>=20 >>>> The RPi4B's are using: >>>>=20 >>>> over_voltage=3D6=20 >>>> arm_freq=3D2000=20 >>>> sdram_freq_min=3D3200=20 >>>> force_turbo=3D1=20 >>>>=20 >>>> (There are heat-sinks, fans, and good power supplies.) >>>>=20 >>>> The media in use are USB3 1 TB Samsung Portable SSD T7 >>>> Touch's. I'm unlikely to see "swap_pager: indefinite >>>> wait buffer:" notices if the cause was based on the >>>> media performance. (You have spinning rust, if I >>>> remember right.) >>>>=20 >>>> I do not have a monitoring script making a huge log file >>>> during the build. So less is competing for media access >>>> or leading to other overheads. (But, as I remember, >>>> you have gotten the problem without having such a script >>>> running.) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ZFS context: >>>=20 >>> Well, the ZFS example used up all the swap space, according >>> to my patched top. This means that my setting of >>> vm.pfault_oom_attempts is not appropriate for this context: >>>=20 >>> # Delay when persistent low free RAM leads to >>> # Out Of Memory killing of processes: >>> vm.pageout_oom_seq=3D120 >>> # >>> # For plunty of swap/paging space (will not >>> # run out), avoid pageout delays leading to >>> # Out Of Memory killing of processes: >>> vm.pfault_oom_attempts=3D-1 >>> # >>> # For possibly insufficient swap/paging space >>> # (might run out), increase the pageout delay >>> # that leads to Out Of Memory killing of >>> # processes (showing defaults at the time): >>> #vm.pfault_oom_attempts=3D 3 >>> #vm.pfault_oom_wait=3D 10 >>> # (The multiplication is the total but there >>> # are other potential tradoffs in the factors >>> # multiplied, even for nearly the same total.) >>>=20 >>> I'll need to retest with something more like the >>> commented out vm.pfault_oom_attempts and >>> vm.pfault_oom_wait figures in order to see the >>> intended handling of the test case. >>>=20 >>> What are you using for each of: >>> vm.pageout_oom_seq ? >>> vm.pfault_oom_attempts ? >>> vm.pfault_oom_wait ? >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> For reference, for ZFS: >>>=20 >>> last pid: 380; load averages: 1.50, 3.07, 3.93 MaxObs: = 5.71, 4.92, 4.76 = up 0+07:23:14 21:23:43 >>> 68 threads: 1 running, 65 sleeping, 2 waiting, 19 MaxObsRunning >>> CPU: 13.3% user, 0.0% nice, 4.9% system, 0.9% interrupt, 80.8% = idle >>> Mem: 4912Mi Active, 167936B Inact, 1193Mi Laundry, 1536Mi Wired, = 40960B Buf, 33860Ki Free, 6179Mi MaxObsActive, 6476Mi MaxObsWired, = 7820Mi MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry) >>> ARC: 777086Ki Total, 132156Ki MFU, 181164Ki MRU, 147456B Anon, = 5994Ki Header, 457626Ki Other >>> 59308Ki Compressed, 254381Ki Uncompressed, 4.29:1 Ratio >>> Swap: 8192Mi Total, 8192Mi Used, K Free, 100% Inuse, 19572Ki In, = 3436Ki Out, 8192Mi MaxObsUsed, 14458Mi MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed), = 15993Mi MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry+SwapUsed) >>>=20 >>> Console: >>> (Looks like I misremembered adjusting the "out of swap space" >>> wording for the misnomer message.) >>>=20 >>> swap_pager: out of swap space >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(18): failed >>> swap_pager: out of swap space >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed >>> swap_pager: out of swap space >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(7): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(24): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(3): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(18): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(17): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(12): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(23): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(30): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(3): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(2): failed >>>=20 >>> . . . Then a bunch of time with no messages . . . >>>=20 >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(5): failed >>> swp_pager_getswapspace(28): failed >>>=20 >>> . . . Then a bunch of time with no messages . . . >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Top again: >>>=20 >>> last pid: 382; load averages: 0.73, 1.00, 2.40 MaxObs: = 5.71, 4.92, 4.76 = up 0+07:31:26 21:31:55 >>> 70 threads: 1 running, 65 sleeping, 4 waiting, 19 MaxObsRunning >>> CPU: 0.1% user, 0.0% nice, 5.6% system, 0.0% interrupt, 94.3% = idle >>> Mem: 3499Mi Active, 4096B Inact, 2612Mi Laundry, 1457Mi Wired, = 40960B Buf, 34676Ki Free, 6179Mi MaxObsActive, 6476Mi MaxObsWired, = 7820Mi MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry) >>> ARC: 777154Ki Total, 135196Ki MFU, 178330Ki MRU, 5995Ki Header, = 457631Ki Other >>> 59520Ki Compressed, 254231Ki Uncompressed, 4.27:1 Ratio >>> Swap: 8192Mi Total, 8192Mi Used, K Free, 100% Inuse, 409600B In, = 4096B Out, 8192Mi MaxObsUsed, 14458Mi MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed), = 15993Mi MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry+SwapUsed) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I then used top to kill ninja and the 4 large compiles >>> that were going on. I'll change: >>>=20 >>> vm.pfault_oom_attempts >>> vm.pfault_oom_wait >>>=20 >>> and reboot and start over. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I expect that the ongoing UFS test will likely end up >>> similarly and that similar adjustments and restarts >>> will be needed because of actually running out of >>> swap space. >>>=20 >>=20 >> I forgot to report: >>=20 >> [00:01:27] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm13 | llvm13-13.0.0_3 >> [07:49:17] [01] [07:47:50] Finished devel/llvm13 | llvm13-13.0.0_3: = Failed: build >>=20 >> So the swap space filling happened somewhat before >> that much time had passed. >=20 > ZFS context: >=20 > I will not start the next bulk until just before bed. I do not > want it to fail while I'm not monitoring it. >=20 > The last 4 reported compile starts reported in the log are: >=20 > [ 64% 4725/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold.cpp > [ 65% 4726/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-character.cpp > [ 65% 4727/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/check-expression.cpp > [ 65% 4728/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-designator.cpp >=20 > But it is possible one or more of these completed and some > earlier one(s) was(were) still running. >=20 > So, if you do not need the Fortran compiler, you can probably > avoid the problem by setting the options for devel/llvm13 to > not build flang. UFS context: . . .; load averages: . . . MaxObs: 5.47, 4.99, 4.82 . . . threads: . . ., 14 MaxObsRunning . . . Mem: . . ., 6457Mi MaxObsActive, 1263Mi MaxObsWired, 7830Mi = MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry) Swap: 8192Mi Total, 8192Mi Used, K Free, 100% Inuse, 8192Mi MaxObsUsed, = 14758Mi MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed), 16017Mi = MaxObs(Act+Wir+Lndry+SwapUsed) Console: swap_pager: out of swap space swp_pager_getswapspace(4): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(2): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(2): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(4): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(9): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(4): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(7): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(29): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(9): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(2): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(4): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(1): failed swp_pager_getswapspace(10): failed . . . Then some time with no messages . . . vm_pageout_mightbe_oom: kill context: v_free_count: 7740, = v_inactive_count: 1 Jan 27 23:01:07 CA72_UFS kernel: pid 57238 (c++), jid 3, uid 0, was = killed: failed to reclaim memory swp_pager_getswapspace(2): failed Note: The "vm_pageout_mightbe_oom: kill context:" notice is one of the few parts of an old reporting patch Mark J. had supplied (long ago) that still fits in the modern code (or that I was able to keep updated enough to fit, anyway). It is another of the personal updates that I keep in my source trees, such as in /usr/main-src/ . diff --git a/sys/vm/vm_pageout.c b/sys/vm/vm_pageout.c index 36d5f3275800..f345e2d4a2d4 100644 --- a/sys/vm/vm_pageout.c +++ b/sys/vm/vm_pageout.c @@ -1828,6 +1828,8 @@ vm_pageout_mightbe_oom(struct vm_domain *vmd, int = page_shortage, * start OOM. Initiate the selection and signaling of the * victim. */ + printf("vm_pageout_mightbe_oom: kill context: v_free_count: %u, = v_inactive_count: %u\n", + vmd->vmd_free_count, = vmd->vmd_pagequeues[PQ_INACTIVE].pq_cnt); vm_pageout_oom(VM_OOM_MEM); =20 /* Again, I'd used vm.pfault_oom_attempts inappropriately for running out of swap (although with UFS it did do a kill fairly soon): # Delay when persistent low free RAM leads to # Out Of Memory killing of processes: vm.pageout_oom_seq=3D120 # # For plunty of swap/paging space (will not # run out), avoid pageout delays leading to # Out Of Memory killing of processes: vm.pfault_oom_attempts=3D-1 # # For possibly insufficient swap/paging space # (might run out), increase the pageout delay # that leads to Out Of Memory killing of # processes (showing defaults at the time): #vm.pfault_oom_attempts=3D 3 #vm.pfault_oom_wait=3D 10 # (The multiplication is the total but there # are other potential tradoffs in the factors # multiplied, even for nearly the same total.) I'll change: vm.pfault_oom_attempts vm.pfault_oom_wait and reboot --and start the bulk somewhat before going to bed. For reference: [00:02:13] [01] [00:00:00] Building devel/llvm13 | llvm13-13.0.0_3 [07:37:05] [01] [07:34:52] Finished devel/llvm13 | llvm13-13.0.0_3: = Failed: build [ 65% 4728/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-designator.cpp [ 65% 4729/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-integer.cpp FAILED: = tools/flang/lib/Evaluate/CMakeFiles/obj.FortranEvaluate.dir/fold-integer.c= pp.o=20 [ 65% 4729/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-logical.cpp [ 65% 4729/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-complex.cpp [ 65% 4729/7265] . . . flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-real.cpp So the flang/lib/Evaluate/fold-integer.cpp one was the one killed. Notably, the specific sources being compiled are different than in the ZFS context report. But this might be because of my killing ninja explicitly in the ZFS context, before killing the running compilers. Again, using the options to avoid building the Fortran compiler probably avoids such memory use --if you do not need the Fortran compiler. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com