From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 9 19:31:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED2A106566B; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:31:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joesuf4@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D32E8FC17; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vxc34 with SMTP id 34so4224528vxc.13 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=e72Gx39W6o8K+HJwrVyiGE3smS9bKs/lGtdNVISoIPY=; b=i96bEpl8a1eAAUtIYZmWjIe+6kO37NHbS99+sCya3AJUybfab7+i++RWflqy2twUdS Qr2XPjhWdaHTTgLfTetkG/0xP5Mmmbm+k37g5fLwH1xMRnepohA+qkQw52I4SmzJO0oO t8/h/w951agyAtiIJ+yxlgWgQxdAhDIE3Ltf4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=L5ozUDy2yRShmJe8MhALwiEQCHeqJ/QJo/m8fJc0brMgzv7/Cd7SZ6ieAANzJpi5qj 1M4NRjGkuttxU9C0rhIsj4E8e7EoWh/6s1bFomlfJeY6mUh1mplrcuyW6qCNZFd2Ue+J ED7PZHLFIaKmzVKluHmcWedGphbVF79lQ5V0Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.94.75 with SMTP id da11mr1970318vdb.152.1302377482556; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.73 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:31:22 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joe Schaefer To: Artem Belevich Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: imposing memory limits in FreeBSD 8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:31:24 -0000 On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Artem Belevich wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> While I am thrilled about the newfound zfs stability that upgrading to 8 >>> has brought, one of the things that seems to have been dropped is >>> support for process memory limits. I have a few servers that occasionally >>> run out of swap due to runaway httpd daemons, and the ulimit -m settings >>> in the startup scripts we use stopped working upon upgrading from FreeBSD 6. >>> >>> I've tried fiddling with the daemon class in login.conf to no avail >>> either. About >>> the only thing I haven't tried is running httpd under djb's softlimit >>> executable. >>> Here's my daemon class in login.conf: >>> >>> daemon:\ >>> :memoryuse=1g:\ >>> :datasize=1g:\ >>> :stacksize=1g:\ >>> :tc=default: >>> >>> and proof that `limits` groks the config: >>> >>> # limits -eHC daemon >>> ulimit -t unlimited; >>> ulimit -f unlimited; >>> ulimit -d 1048576; >>> ulimit -s 1048576; >>> ulimit -c unlimited; >>> ulimit -m 1048576; >>> ulimit -l unlimited; >>> ulimit -u unlimited; >>> ulimit -n unlimited; >>> ulimit -b unlimited; >>> ulimit -v unlimited; >>> ulimit -p unlimited; >>> ulimit -w unlimited; >>> >>> Any tips from admins who have successfully imposed memory constraints in 8.x? >> >> If I recall it correctly, in -8 malloc defaults to mmap for memory >> allocations, so RLIMIT_DATA no longer applies. >> You have to set RLIMIT_VMEM, but be careful as that would include >> everything mmapped in even if it does not use much of that. rpc.statd >> is one example of that -- it mmaps in ~256M but has only ~400K >> resident set size. >> >> Another option would be to make malloc() switch back to sbrk() with >> MALLOC_OPTIONS=D. This way datasize limit will still be in effect. > > Thanks for the tip. My concern is with runaway processes that are pushing the > server into swap, so it's pretty easy to pick them out based on what top reports > for their SIZE. I'll try the vmem limit and let you know how that works out. > Sweet- if the expected behavior is to send the process a SIGABORT when it hits the limit, it's working perfectly.