Simple-Stupid user-space program protecting a linux host from thrashing, causing graceful degradation rather than thrashing on heavy swap usage. It's supposed both to be used as an "insurance" on systems that aren't expected to thrash and as a stop-gap measure on hosts where thrashing has been observed.
The script attempts to detect thrashing situations and stop rogue processes for short intervals. It works a bit like the ABS break on the car - hopefully allowing a sysadmin to get control over the situation despite the thrashing - or eventually letting the box become slightly degraded instead of completely thrashed (until the rogue process ends or gets killed by the oom killer).
The commit rate has been fairly low during the last few years - for the very simple reason that it seems to work fairly well.
See the INSTALL file.
Facebook has made a tool oomd which possibly can do the same as thrash-protect and more, possibly in a better way, but requires more configuration and a new kernel (4.2+) with performance stats available under /proc/pressure.
It's common to add relatively much swap space to linux installations. Swapping things out is good as long as the the swapped-out data is really inactive. Unfortunately, if actively used memory ends up being swapped out (actively running applications using more memory than what's available), linux has a tendency to become completely unresponsive - to the point that it's often needed to reboot the box through hardware button or remote management.
It can be frustrating enough when it happens on a laptop or a work station; on a production server it's just unacceptable.
If asking around on how to solve problems with thrashing, the typical answer would be one out of four:
Install enough memory! In the real world, that's not always trivial; there may be physical, logistical and economical constraints delaying or stopping a memory upgrade. It may also be non-trivial to determinate how much memory one would need to install to have "enough" of it. Also, no matter how much memory is installed, one won't be safe against all the memory getting hogged by some software bug.
Disable swap. Even together with the advice "install enough memory" this is not a fail-safe way to prevent thrashing; without sufficient buffers/cache space Linux will start thrashing (ref https://github.com/tobixen/thrash-protect/issues/2). It doesn't give good protection against all memory getting hogged by some software bug, the OOM-killer may kill the wrong process. Also, in many situations swap can be a very good thing - i.e. if having processes with memory leakages, aggressive usage of tmpfs, some applications simply expects swap (keeping large datasets in memory), etc. Enabling swap can be a lifesaver when a much-needed memory upgrade is delayed.
Tune the swap amount to prevent thrashing. This doesn't actually work, even a modest amount of swap can be sufficient to cause severe thrash situations.
Restrict your processes with ulimit, cgroups or kernel parameters. In general it makes sense, but doesn't really help against the thrashing problem; if one wants to use swap one will risk thrashing.
In a severe thrash situation, the linux kernel may spend a second doing context switching just to allow the process to do useful work for some few milliseconds. Wouldn't it be better if the process was allowed to run uninterrupted for some few seconds before the next context switch? Thrash-protect attempts to suspend processes for seconds allowing the non-suspended processes to actually do useful work.
Even the quite-so-buggy first implementation saved the day. A heavy computing job started by our customer had three times caused the need for a power-cycle. After implementing thrash-protect it was easy to identify the "rogue" process and the user that had started it. I let the process run - even installed some more swap as it needed it - and eventually the process completed successfully!
As of 2019 I have several years of experience having thrash-protect actively suspending processes on dozens of VMs and real computers. I'm running it everywhere, both on production servers, personal work stations and laptops. I can tell that ...
... I haven't observed many drawbacks with running this script
... the script definitively has saved us from several power-cyclings
... I'm using the log files to identify when it's needed to add more memory - I've found this to be a more useful and reliable indicator than anything else!
... most problems that otherwise would cause severe thrashing (i.e. a backup job kicking in at night time, fighting with the production application for the available memory) will resolve by themselves with thrash-protect running (backup job completing but taking a bit longer time and causing some performance degradation in the production app, rogue process gobbling up all the memory killed off by the OOM-killer, etc).
All this said, the script hasn't been through any thorough peer-review, and it hasn't been deployed on any massive scale - don't blame me if you start up this script and anything goes kaboom.
Possibly the biggest problem: some parent processes may behave unexpectedly when the children gets suspended. You may easily check this manually by starting up processes and running "kill -STOP" and "kill -CONT" towards the pids. A workaround has been implemented in the script (see the job control thing in the configuration), but it's not failsafe. I'm only aware of problems with bash and sudo - and possibly the condor job control system. Problems observed:
If running a process under sudo (i.e. "sudo sleep 3600") and the subprocess (sleep) is suspended, the parent process (sudo) will automatically also be suspended and has to be manually resumed.
If running an non-interactive process "in the foreground" in an interactive bash session (i.e. "sleep 3600") and the process is suspended, it's moved "to the background" and will stay "backgrounded" if it's resumed. In particular, doing "while [ 1 ] ; do heavy_task ; done" may cause heavy_task to be spawned in parallell as the while-loop will continue running when heavy_task gets backgrounded (workaround: throw an ampersand behind and the whole loop will be backgrounded from the beginning).
If running an interactive process "in the foreground" (i.e. an email reader, an IRC-session or a minecraft server) it will also be "backgrounded" but will stay suspended even if it's resumed. (work-around: start the processes directly from screen - though tmux seems to run everything through the shell, so the problem persists with tmux).
There has been one (1) report of problems with the condor job control service on a VM running thrash-protect, but I wasn't able to reproduce the problem.
Make sure to install some swap space. Thrash-protect is not performing very well if no swap space is installed.
The default settings are not very well tuned for a host with fast swap (SSD). You may risk that the performance goes down on a host actively using the swap space. At the other hand, for SSDs, thrash-protect will likely increase the life time of the SSD.
Thrash-protect is optimized for servers, not desktops. One may experience that GUI-sessions (XOrg, Wayland, window managers, etc) won't work at all if heavy thrashing is going on. Keep in mind that under such circumstances normally the whole system would be completely down for infinite time - with thrash-protect, if you can get out into a console (try ctrl-alt-F2 or ctrl-alt-F3, etc) or if you can access the host through ssh, things should work out without any significant interruptions. If you know a little bit about sysadmin work, you should be able to find and kill the processes causing the thrashing.
On hosts actually using swap, every now and then some process will be suspended for a short period of time, so it's probably not a good idea to use thrash-protect on "real time"-systems (then again, you would probably not be using swap or overcommitting memory on a "real time"-system). Many of my colleagues frown upon the idea of a busy database server being arbitrarily suspended - but then again, on almost any system a database request that normally takes milliseconds will every now and then take a couple of seconds, no matter if thrash-protect is in use or not. My experience is that such suspendings typically happens once per day or more rarely on hosts having "sufficient" amounts of memory, and lasts for a fraction of a second. In most use-cases this is negligible. In some cases many processes are suspended for more than a second or many times pr hour - but in those circumstances the alternative would most likely be an even worse performance degradation or even total downtime due to thrashing.
Thrash-protect is not optimized to be "fair". Say there are two significant processes A and B; letting both of them run causes thrashing, suspending one of them stops the thrashing. Probably thrash-protect should be flapping between suspending A and suspending B. What may happen is that process B is flapping between suspended and running, while A is allowed to run 100%.
This was supposed to be a rapid prototype, so it doesn't recognize any options. Configuration settings can be given through OS environment, but there exists no documentation. I've always been running it without any special configuration.
Usage of mlockall should be made optional. On a system with small amounts of RAM (i.e. half a gig) thrash-protect itself can consume significant amounts of memory.
It seems very unlikely to be related, but it has been reported that "swapoff" failed to complete on a server where thrash-protect was running.
The alternative to thrash-protect may be to have less swap available and rely on the OOM killer to take care of rogue processes causing thrashing.
I hate the OOM-killer - one never knows the side effects of arbitrary processes being killed. I believe OOM-killings are a lot more disruptive than temporary suspending processes through thrash-protect. An example: the developers may be using some local SMTP-server for sending important emails, maybe they didn't care to do proper error handling, so the emails are efficiently lost if the SMTP server is down. The local SMTP-server gets downed by the OOM-killer on a Thursday. Perhaps there is no monitoring on this, perhaps nobody notices that the SMTP-server was killed by the OOM-killer, only on Saturday someone notices that something is amiss, on Monday the SMPT-server is started again - and nobody knows how many important emails was lost.
In some few cases the OOM-killer may work out pretty well - say, some java process is bloated over time due to memory leakages and finally killed off by the OOM-killer. No problem, systemd is set up to autorestart tomcat, and apart from some few end users trying to access the server at the wrong time nobody notices something is amiss (I observed that one some few days ago, and suggested thrash-protect+more memory for the person responsible for the box). Another example, some apache server spinning up too many memory-hogging processes due to a DDoS-attack - it's probably better that random processes are splatted by the OOM-killer than that they are suspended for 30s.
As for the memory-leaking java server example, with thrash-protect and proper monitoring, a sysadmin will observe the issue before it gets into a big problem, and do a proper restart - and eventually set up monit or cron to restart it automatically in a controlled way.
As for the apache example - I've actually experienced severe thrashing on a server where the swap space was adjusted to "insignificant" amounts and where I've attempted to tune MaxConnections. I've later deployed thrash-protect and increased the swap partition substantially, that has solved up the problems. Consider those scenarioes:
No thrash-protect, small amounts of swap installed. In the very best case, the OOM-killer will wipe out enough apache processes that the remaining will work. More likely, the whole apache server will be taken down by the OOM-killer, triggering full downtime.
No thrash-protect, sufficient amounts of swap installed. Most likely the server will start thrashing, most likely no requests will be successfully handled within reasonable time, perhaps it's needed to power-cycle the server.
thrash-protect, sufficient amounts of swap installed, apache configured with the MaxConnections a bit too high - say, standard setting of 150 while the server in reality is able to handle only 100 requests without touching swap. In best case, thrash-protect will suspend 50 requests for some few seconds, those 50 will be swapped completely out, leaving all the other memory for the other hundred requests uninterrupted for several seconds, ideally most of the requests will finish within those few seconds. Net result: graceful degradation, most of the resources available will be efficiently spent handling requests, some of the requests served will be delayed due to some few seconds of suspending. Varnish may also be set up to handle the requests in excess of those 150 gracefully, worst case a quick "503 guru meditation" (which is in any case better than letting the client wait for a timeout).
thrash-protect installed, more than a lot of swap installed, apache configured with a way too high MaxConnections (say, MaxConnections increased to 1500, but Apache can handle only 30 requests without some of them being swapped out). This will not work out very well, the majority of the apache requests needs to be suspended, the requests may be suspended sufficiently long to cause timeouts, or the end-user will sign up with a competing web service while waiting for the requests to be handled. Hopefully some on-call system operator will be alerted through the alarm system. The operator will be able to log in and see what's going on and deal with it, one way or another. It's still way better scenario than having to do a power cycling, and maybe better than having apache killed completely by the OOM-killer.
All this said, in some use-case scenarioes, killing processes may still be better than suspending them. If you do want to depend on the OOM-killer for avoiding thrashing incidents, then I'd suggest to have a look at oomd
This should eventually be a kernel-feature - ultra slow context switching between swapping processes would probably "solve" a majority of thrashing-issues. In a majority of thrashing scenarioes the problem is too fast context switching between processes, causing insignificant amount of CPU cycles to be actually be spent on the processes.
A prototype has been made in python - my initial thought was to reimplement in C for smallest possible footstep, memory consumption and fastest possible action - though I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.
This script will be checking the pswpin and pswpout variables
/proc/vmstat on configurable intervals to detect thrashing (in the
future, /proc/pressure/memory will probably be used instead). The
formula is set up so that a lot of unidirectional swap movement or a
little bit of bidirectional swapping within a time interval will
trigger (something like
(swapin+epsilon)*(swapout+epsilon)>threshold). The program will
then STOP the most nasty process. When the host has stopped swapping
the host will resume one of the stopped processes. If the host starts
swapping again, the last resumed PID will be refrozen.
Finding the most "nasty" process seems to be a bit non-trivial, as there is no per-process counters on swapin/swapout. Currently three algorithms have been implemented and the script uses them in this order:
Last unfrozen pid, if it's still running. Of course this can't work as a stand-alone solution, but it's a very cheap operation and just the right thing to do if the host started swapping heavily just after unfreezing some pid - hence it's always the first algorithm to run after unfreezing some pid.
oom_score; intended to catch processes gobbling up "too much" memory. It has some drawbacks - it doesn't target the program behaviour "right now", and it will give priority to parent pids - when suspending a process, it may not help to simply suspend the parent process.
Number of page faults. This was the first algorithm I made, but it does not catch rogue processes gobbling up memory and swap through write-only operations, as that won't cause page faults. The algorithm also came up with false positives, a "page fault" is not the same as swapin - it also happens when a program wants to access data that the kernel has postponed loading from disk (typically program code - hence one typically gets lots of page fault when starting some relatively big application). The worst problem with this approach is that it requires state about every process to be stored in memory, this memory may be swapped out, and if the box is really thrashed it may take forever to get through this algorithm.
The script creates a file on /tmp when there are frozen processes, nrpe can eventually be set up to monitor the existence of such a file as well as the existence of suspended processes.
Important processes (say, sshd) can be whitelisted, and processes known to be nasty or unimportant can be blacklisted (there are some default settings on this). Note that the "black/whitelisting" is done by weighting - randomly stopping blacklisted processes may not be sufficient to stop thrashing, and a whitelisted process may still be particularly nasty and stopped.
With this approach, hopefully the most-thrashing processes will be slowed down sufficiently that it will always be possible to ssh into a thrashing box and see what's going on. I very soon realized that both a queue approach and a stack approach on the frozen pid list has its problems (the stack may permanently freeze relatively innocent processes, the queue is inefficient and causes quite much paging) so I made some logic "get from the head of the list sometimes, pop from the tail most of the times".
I found that I couldn't allow to do a full sleep(sleep_interval) between each frozen process if the box was thrashing. I've also attempted to detect if there are delays in the processing, and let the script be more aggressive. Unfortunately this change introduced quite some added complexity.
Some research should eventually be done to learn if the program would benefit significantly from being rewritten into C - but it seems like I won't bother, it seems to work well enough in python.
Focus up until 1.0 is deployment, testing, production-hardening, testing, testing, bugfixing and eventually some tweaking but only if it's really needed.
Some things that SHOULD be fixed before 1.0 is released:
Support configuration through command line switches as well as through a config file. Fix official usage documentation to be availabe at --help.
Graceful handling of SIGTERM (any suspended processes should be reanimated)
Recovery on restart (read status file and resume any suspended processes)
Clean up logging and error handling properly - logging should be done through the logging module. Separate error log?
More testing, make sure all the code has been tested. I.e. is the check_delay function useful?
Some things that MAY be considered before 1.0:
Add more automated unit tests and functional test code.
All parts of the code needs to be exercised, including parsing configuration variables, etc.
More "lab testing", and research on possible situations were thrash-bot wins over thrash-protect. Verify that the mlockall() actually works.
Tune for lower memory consumption
look into init scripts, startup script and systemd script to ensure program is run with "nice -n -20"
Look into init scripts, startup script and systemd script to allow for site-specific configuration
Fix puppet manifest to accept config params
look into the systemd service config, can the cgroup swappiness configuration be tweaked?
Do more testing on parent suspension problems (particularly stress-testing with the condor system, testing with other interactive shells besides bash, etc)
More work is needed on getting "make rpm" and "make debian" to work
Package should include munin plugins
Read performance statistics from /proc/pressure/memory if it exists
Things that eventually may go into 2.0:
Replace floats with ints
Rewrite to C for better control of the memory footprint
Use regexps instead of split (?)
Garbage collection of old processes from the pid/pagefault dict
Rely on /proc/pressure/memory to exist