Re: The pagedaemon evicts ARC before scanning the inactive page list
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 22:00:14 UTC
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 3:45 PM Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 03:07:44PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > > I'm using ZFS on servers with tons of RAM and running FreeBSD > > 12.2-RELEASE. Sometimes they get into a pathological situation where > most > > of that RAM sits unused. For example, right now one of them has: > > > > 2 GB Active > > 529 GB Inactive > > 16 GB Free > > 99 GB ARC total > > 469 GB ARC max > > 86 GB ARC target > > > > When a server gets into this situation, it stays there for days, with the > > ARC target barely budging. All that inactive memory never gets reclaimed > > and put to a good use. Frequently the server never recovers until a > reboot. > > > > I have a theory for what's going on. Ever since r334508^ the pagedaemon > > sends the vm_lowmem event _before_ it scans the inactive page list. If > the > > ARC frees enough memory, then vm_pageout_scan_inactive won't need to free > > any. Is that order really correct? For reference, here's the relevant > > code, from vm_pageout_worker: > > That was the case even before r334508. Note that prior to that revision > vm_pageout_scan_inactive() would trigger vm_lowmem if pass > 0, before > scanning the inactive queue. During a memory shortage we have pass > 0. > pass == 0 only when the page daemon is scanning the active queue. > > > shortage = pidctrl_daemon(&vmd->vmd_pid, vmd->vmd_free_count); > > if (shortage > 0) { > > ofree = vmd->vmd_free_count; > > if (vm_pageout_lowmem() && vmd->vmd_free_count > ofree) > > shortage -= min(vmd->vmd_free_count - ofree, > > (u_int)shortage); > > target_met = vm_pageout_scan_inactive(vmd, shortage, > > &addl_shortage); > > } else > > addl_shortage = 0 > > > > Raising vfs.zfs.arc_min seems to workaround the problem. But ideally > that > > wouldn't be necessary. > > vm_lowmem is too primitive: it doesn't tell subscribing subsystems > anything about the magnitude of the shortage. At the same time, the VM > doesn't know much about how much memory they are consuming. A better > strategy, at least for the ARC, would be reclaim memory based on the > relative memory consumption of each subsystem. In your case, when the > page daemon goes to reclaim memory, it should use the inactive queue to > make up ~85% of the shortfall and reclaim the rest from the ARC. Even > better would be if the ARC could use the page cache as a second-level > cache, like the buffer cache does. > > Today I believe the ARC treats vm_lowmem as a signal to shed some > arbitrary fraction of evictable data. If the ARC is able to quickly > answer the question, "how much memory can I release if asked?", then > the page daemon could use that to determine how much of its reclamation > target should come from the ARC vs. the page cache. > I guess I don't understand why you would ever free from the ARC rather than from the inactive list. When is inactive memory ever useful?