17 May 2009

Mr. Malloc gets schooled

I've been terribly busy for the past 8 months, frantically developing Crux and using it to conduct experiments so that I can finish my thesis for a PhD in computational biology. An ironic thing happened this weekend, and this is the perfect forum for sharing it. I spent two days trying to figure out why Crux's memory usage was growing without bound when analyzing large datasets. I looked for memory leaks, inefficient caching, garbage collection issues, any explanation for the memory usage. After much pain and agony (including that inflicted on the system administrator who kindly patched up the bleeding Beowulf cluster I left in my wake), I finally came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't in Crux. That led me to... glibc's ptmalloc. Launching Crux with jemalloc LD_PRELOAD'ed made the problem go away!

It turns out that memory was fragmenting without bound. Crux incrementally reallocates (actually free(...); posix_memalign(...)) vectors of double-precision floating point numbers. For the dataset I'm currently analyzing, these vectors are multiples of ~337KiB, where the multiplier is anything from 1 to ~65 (20+MiB). I wouldn't have expected this to cause malloc any fragmentation problems, since the last I knew, ptmalloc simply used mmap() for all allocations above 128KiB. However, here's what it does now (taken directly from the glibc source code):
Update in 2006:
The above was written in 2001. Since then the world has changed a lot. Memory got bigger. Applications got bigger. The virtual address space layout in 32 bit linux changed.

In the new situation, brk() and mmap space is shared and there are no artificial limits on brk size imposed by the kernel. What is more, applications have started using transient allocations larger than the 128Kb as was imagined in 2001.

The price for mmap is also high now; each time glibc mmaps from the kernel, the kernel is forced to zero out the memory it gives to the application. Zeroing memory is expensive and eats a lot of cache and memory bandwidth. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the virtual memory system, by doing mmap the kernel just has no choice but to zero.

In 2001, the kernel had a maximum size for brk() which was about 800 megabytes on 32 bit x86, at that point brk() would hit the first mmaped shared libaries and couldn't expand anymore. With current 2.6 kernels, the VA space layout is different and brk() and mmap both can span the entire heap at will.

Rather than using a static threshold for the brk/mmap tradeoff, we are now using a simple dynamic one. The goal is still to avoid fragmentation. The old goals we kept are
1) try to get the long lived large allocations to use mmap()
2) really large allocations should always use mmap() and we're adding now:
3) transient allocations should use brk() to avoid forcing the kernel having to zero memory over and over again

The implementation works with a sliding threshold, which is by default limited to go between 128Kb and 32Mb (64Mb for 64 bitmachines) [actually 512KiB/32MiB for 32/64-bit machines as configured in glibc] and starts out at 128Kb as per the 2001 default.

This allows us to satisfy requirement 1) under the assumption that long lived allocations are made early in the process' lifespan, before it has started doing dynamic allocations of the same size (which will increase the threshold).

The upperbound on the threshold satisfies requirement 2)

The threshold goes up in value when the application frees memory that was allocated with the mmap allocator. The idea is that once the application starts freeing memory of a certain size, it's highly probable that this is a size the application uses for transient allocations. This estimator is there to satisfy the new third requirement.
So, ptmalloc got smart, and appears to have opened itself up to a serious fragmentation problem due to some inadequacy in its data segment layout policies. Here's a simple fix that disables the sliding threshold:
mallopt(M_MMAP_THRESHOLD, 128*1024);
How did I fail to consider this possibility for two whole days? There are a few contributing factors:
  • I'd never actually seen ptmalloc fail spectacularly before. I've received several emails over the past year from people using jemalloc to avoid ptmalloc fragmentation problems, but I didn't know what conditions actually triggered the problem(s).
  • As the author of jemalloc, I'm keenly aware of how often people are wrong when they blame the memory allocator for their problems.
  • My reasoning about how memory allocation works is tainted by intimate knowledge of how jemalloc works, and I failed to consider that Crux's memory allocation patterns could cause problems for other allocators.
So there you have it: I've been schooled, and not in a pretty way.

7 Comments:

At May 18, 2009 6:53 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did you need special alignment?

 
At May 18, 2009 10:14 AM , Blogger Jason said...

The special alignment requirement (64-byte alignment) is due to concurrently processing the vectors with pthreads. It's important to avoid modifying the same L1 cache line in more than one thread. In practice, this is not an issue except with small vectors, since all modern allocators use page alignment for those that exceed one page.

 
At May 18, 2009 10:15 AM , Blogger xose said...

latest glibc malloc release makes malloc to be more scalable.

glibc 2.10 news: href=http://udrepper.livejournal.com/20948.htmlcode: href=http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=tree;f=malloc-thanks-

regards,

 
At May 19, 2009 8:49 PM , Blogger poige said...

Hi, Jason! I wonder did you use http://www.canonware.com/download/jemalloc/ versions ( # jemalloc_linux_20080827a.tbz
# jemalloc_linux_20080828a.tbz ) or a newer one? :-)

 
At May 20, 2009 5:00 AM , OpenID poige said...

xose, "more scalable" doesn't mean to be "more effective" in terms of memory fragmentation (what's happened to be the matter of Jason's posting).

 
At May 20, 2009 8:00 AM , Blogger Jason said...

poige, I used the same jemalloc sources as are available in jemalloc_linux_20080828a.tbz.

 
At June 19, 2009 12:02 PM , Blogger hyc said...

Too bad the new glibc malloc seems to be totally broken in heavily threaded code.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504963

I'd be happier if it was a bug in my code, because then I could actually fix it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home