From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sat Sep 14 16:10:19 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E906BF8A48; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:10:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "www.zefox.org", Issuer "www.zefox.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46VyCG4jnSz48ck; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:10:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8EGAFWq033684 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x8EGAFoo033683; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:10:14 -0700 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: FreeBSD Current , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spurious out of swap kills Message-ID: <20190914161014.GA33442@www.zefox.net> References: <28BF21DA-8B16-4CD8-8E5E-C1B596FE3684@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28BF21DA-8B16-4CD8-8E5E-C1B596FE3684@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46VyCG4jnSz48ck X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.01 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.15)[-0.150,0]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.08)[ip: (0.34), ipnet: 50.1.16.0/20(0.17), asn: 7065(-0.05), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.18)[0.178,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:10:20 -0000 On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:59:58PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > bob prohaska fbsd at www.zefox.net wrote on > Fri Sep 13 16:24:57 UTC 2019 : > > > Not sure this is relevant, but in compiling chromium on a Pi3 with 6 GB > > of swap the job completed successfully some months ago, with peak swap > > use around 3.5 GB. The swap layout was sub-optimal, with a 2 GB partition > > combined with a 4 GB partition. A little over 4GB total seems usable. > > > > A few days ago the same attempt stopped with a series of OOMA kills, > > but in each case simply restarting allowed the compile to pick up > > where it left off and continue, eventually finishing with a runnable > > version of chromium. In this case swap use peaked a little over 4 GB. > > > > Might this suggest the machine isn't freeing swap in a timely manner? > > Are you saying that your increases to: > > vm.pageout_oom_seq > > no longer prove sufficient? What value for vm.pageout_oom_seq were > you using that got the recent failures? > Correct. Initial value was 2048, later raised to 4096. Far as I could tell the change didn't help. No explict j value was set for make, but no more than four jobs were observed in top A log of storage activity along with swap total and the last two console messages is at http://www.zefox.net/~fbsd/rpi3/swaptests/r351586/swapscript.log along with a sorted list of total swap use, which can be used as a sort of index to the log file. The initial "out of swap space" at the very beginning is a relic from before logging started. Da0 is a Sandisk SDCZ80 usb 3.0 device, mmcsd0 is a Samsung Evo + 128 GB device. The two points of curiosity to me are: 1. Why did swap use increase from 3.5 GB months ago to 4.2 GB now? 2. Why does stopping and restarting make (which would seem to free un-needed swap) allow the job to finish? > If more or different configuration/tuning is required, I'm going to > eventually want to learn about it as well. > You will have some company. Thanks for reading, bob prohaska