Re: ten thousand small processes
From: Jon Mini (mini_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 06/25/03
- Previous message: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: Petri Helenius: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:29:30 -0700 To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
D. J. Bernstein [djb@cr.yp.to] wrote :
> In case my subject line isn't clear enough: I'm not talking about
> browsers. I'm not talking about programs that ``use up stack space,'' or
> that would feel even slightly ``restricted'' by a 1GB limit on the heap,
> or that use threads, or that allocate many file descriptors per process.
However, you *are* talking about modifying the behaviour of a system
that normally runs processes like this. This is a general-purpose
operating system. We have to consider the impact of any changes
we make on all types of loads, but primarily the most common ones.
Especially the most common performance-critical ones. That means
processes which do not behave at all like what you are talking
about.
If FreeBSD primarily ran very small processes that only consumed a
few kilobytes of state, then it would be designed very differently,
and the problem you are describing would not exist. However, that
is not the case.
> I'm talking about _small_ processes. I'm talking about programs that
> might have quite a bit of code, and might read and write quite a lot of
> data, but that don't use much memory per process. The problem is that
> I'm talking about ten thousand of these processes running at once.
You are going to run in a far larger list of problems when trying
to run orders of tens of thousands of processes on FreeBSD. The
fact of the matter is not that FreeBSD might have poorly designed
implementation details, but rather that a large-scale architectural
decision was made among the UNIX community at large to, simply put,
not support that.
The fact of the matter is that a process is a heavy-weight entity.
The resource consumption you are describing in userland is least
of your worries. In the kernel many more resources are consumed
on a per-process bases and, unfortunately, there are a handful of
algorithms that are going to have poor growth charactaristics with
that many processes active on the system. The impact on the
scheduling subsystem alone is probably worth several months of
research.
You are not going to find much of a positive response here for your
use case. What you suggest would take many hours of development
time in order to provide gain only on use cases that are (a) not
common, and (b) not helpful. Simply put, we don't want users to
make tens of thousands of small processes. This, among other things,
is what threads are for.
> In this situation, if malloc() fritters away 24K of RAM in one process,
> it's actually frittering away more than 234 _megabytes_ of RAM. This
> memory is _not_ going to be ``used later.'' The behavior of malloc()
> here is not ``quite good.'' For the program that prompted this thread,
> malloc() achieved 4.3% fill, 95.7% external fragmentation.
Congradulations! You've successfully shown that there is no "One
True Memory Allocator" that allocates perfectly in all cases, and
that memory fragmentation can become terribly wasteful!
Our malloc(3) exists in order to solve a very different sort of
problem than the one you are trying to solve: the common case for
FreeBSD, which is large processes that perform many allocations of
wildly varying sizes. I suggest you read Paul's paper on his
malloc(3) implementation and the problems he was trying to solve.
You can find a copy in /usr/share/doc/papers/malloc.ascii.gz.
> In this situation, squeezing variables into a single page---rather than
> spreading them among the first few bytes of several separate pages---
> often produces huge improvements in CPU cache effectiveness. Yes, I know
> that doesn't make a difference for your browser; I'm not talking about
> your browser.
You have an economy of scale problem here. One moment, you argue
that you want to create a system where you have tens of thousands
of processes, and that wasting a few pages per process is unacceptable
because there are so many of them. Then, in the next moment, you
say that this is also bad because of cache behaviour?
I'm sorry, but you are way off here. First of all, caches are *much
larger* than the size of the processes you are talking about. Second
of all, every time you perform a context switch between processes,
you must flush your cache. Given that you are talking about "tens
of thousands" of processes, one would imagine that you would be
context-switching constantly. Cache behaviour would definately be
a problem in that system, but it's not because of malloc(3).
It sounds very much like you are trying to use the wrong solution
here, and that what you want to do will never work well. Perhaps
a better approach would be to try using (in order of weight):
finite-automita, co-routines, a cooperative user-land thread
scheduler, or kernel-assisted threading (KSE or thr)?
On x86 spcifically, you could hand-roll yourself a more efficient
protection mechanism using segments, but even there you are going
to run into problems with the number of segment descriptors
available.
> In this situation, if the kernel is maintaining pages of memory that
> look like
>
> process 1: 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
> process 2: 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
> process 3: 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
>
> then it's wasting an incredible amount of space. As I said before:
> Instead of allocating space for a bunch of nearly identical page tables
> (or anything else showing this type of waste), why not overlap page
> tables, with the changes copied on a process switch?
I am trying to understand what you are saying here, but it is hard,
because the picture you drew does not match the way that page tables
actually work. So, to paraphrase:
Problem: The majority of entries in these page directories are
zero. That is to say, they are very sparse.
Solution: Dynamically create a page table on every context
switch from a compressed state description of the
mappings (or perhaps from the vm object list) upon
every context switch.
Is this what you are proposing?
> ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
> Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
-- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.freebsd.org/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: Petri Helenius: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
