Hi Pavel,

After running with this latest fixup commit for a week, I see mixed results.

With the first fix you created, all the processes remained using a very
small amount of memory, consistently.  As per my previous email, around
80Mg.
With the second fix, some of the bird processes are using up to about
600Mg, but some are still using more like the 80Mg from the first fix.
And, there is a mixture in between those two extremes.

So my question is  - is this normal and expected now, of is there a
potential issue with the second fix?


Here is an example range of memory usage, the hosts all have broadly the
same route counts, but some advertise and withdraw more routes than others
[ although that itself doesn't seem to be related to the size]..

0.08 GB
0.08 GB
0.08 GB
0.08 GB
0.08 GB
0.08 GB
0.09 GB
0.10 GB
0.10 GB
0.10 GB
0.11 GB
0.11 GB
0.11 GB
0.16 GB
0.61 GB
0.61 GB
0.61 GB
0.61 GB
0.61 GB
0.62 GB
0.62 GB
0.62 GB
0.62 GB
0.63 GB
0.63 GB



Thanks!




Cheers,
Just

On 12 September 2016 at 11:29, Justin Cattle <j...@ocado.com> wrote:

> Thanks Pavel - I have updated our package and rolled this version out
> where the previous new package was.
>
> As it's a new version, I will leave it a few more days before deploying
> everywhere now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Just
>
> On 12 September 2016 at 08:16, Pavel Tvrdík <pavel.tvr...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Justin.
>>
>> On 2016-09-09 10:45, Justin Cattle wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> This is looking good for us :)
>>> It's been in the lab for 3 days across 25 hosts, and memory usage
>>> looks absolutely static after process start.
>>>
>>> We have a couple of canary hosts in production too, and they are
>>> showing the same results.
>>>
>>> Previous to installing the patched version , the process on this host
>>> was using about 17g of Virt Mem - now at about 80Mg, which is a nice
>>> optimisation ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> I am planning to roll this out over production next week if possible.
>>> I can report back in a few weeks if you like, but it certainly seems
>>> like this is resolved.
>>>
>>
>> A colleague Ondra Zajicek noticed me that the solution could lead to
>> reading from freed memory. I made a fixup commit (d9c6d180) at the top of
>> branch krt-export-filtr-fix. Please apply the commit too.
>>
>> https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/bird/commit/d9c6d180e41c7246
>> ccbde8ae4d828d87daa12cf4
>>
>> It should fix the bug in the better way.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks again for your help on this - we really appreciate it :)
>>>
>>>
>> You're welcome :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pavel
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Just
>>> On 7 September 2016 at 09:08, Pavel Tvrdík <pavel.tvr...@nic.cz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Just.
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-06 22:50, Justin Cattle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I found some time to package using a patch to the latest 1.6.0
>>>>> release, created from a diff of origin/krt-export-filtr-fix
>>>>> against
>>>>> v1.6.0-34-g768d013  [ seems to be the top three commits ].
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the top three commits, exactly!
>>>>
>>>> I hope that's valid.  That patch applied without issue, and I
>>>>> wrapped
>>>>> it into a debian patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed on a few hosts, and I'll report back tomorrow if I
>>>>> get
>>>>> a chance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for the speedy code :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my debian package patch for reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> cat bird-1.6.0/debian/patches/001-krt-export-filtr-fix.patch
>>>>> filter/tree: prefer xmalloc/xfree to malloc/free
>>>>> rt-table: fix kernel protocol export filter memory bug
>>>>> Index: bird-1.6.0/filter/tree.c
>>>>>
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>
>>>>> --- bird-1.6.0.orig/filter/tree.c 2013-11-23 12:29:53.000000000
>>>>> +0000
>>>>> +++ bird-1.6.0/filter/tree.c 2016-09-06 21:30:15.435090279 +0100
>>>>> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
>>>>> if (len <= 1024)
>>>>> buf = alloca(len * sizeof(struct f_tree *));
>>>>> else
>>>>> -    buf = malloc(len * sizeof(struct f_tree *));
>>>>> +    buf = xmalloc(len * sizeof(struct f_tree *));
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Convert a degenerated tree into an sorted array */
>>>>> i = 0;
>>>>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@
>>>>> root = build_tree_rec(buf, 0, len);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (len > 1024)
>>>>> -    free(buf);
>>>>> +    xfree(buf);
>>>>>
>>>>> return root;
>>>>> }
>>>>> Index: bird-1.6.0/nest/rt-table.c
>>>>>
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>
>>>>> --- bird-1.6.0.orig/nest/rt-table.c 2016-04-29 10:13:23.000000000
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> +++ bird-1.6.0/nest/rt-table.c 2016-09-06 21:30:15.435090279 +0100
>>>>> @@ -60,6 +60,21 @@
>>>>> static inline void rt_schedule_prune(rtable *tab);
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int rte_update_nest_cnt; /* Nesting counter to allow
>>>>> recursive
>>>>> updates */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline void
>>>>> +rte_update_lock(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +  rte_update_nest_cnt++;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline void
>>>>> +rte_update_unlock(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +  if (!--rte_update_nest_cnt)
>>>>> +    lp_flush(rte_update_pool);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static inline struct ea_list *
>>>>> make_tmp_attrs(struct rte *rt, struct linpool *pool)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -609,10 +624,18 @@
>>>>> if (!rte_is_valid(best0))
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>> +  /* This non-static function could be called from outside
>>>>> rt-table.c
>>>>> file and
>>>>> +   * we need to ensure that a temporary allocated linpool memory
>>>>> @rte_update_pool
>>>>> +   * will be freed */
>>>>> +  rte_update_lock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> best = export_filter(ah, best0, rt_free, tmpa, silent);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!best || !rte_is_reachable(best))
>>>>> +  {
>>>>> +    rte_update_unlock();
>>>>> return best;
>>>>> +  }
>>>>>
>>>>> for (rt0 = best0->next; rt0; rt0 = rt0->next)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -646,6 +669,8 @@
>>>>> if (best != best0)
>>>>> *rt_free = best;
>>>>>
>>>>> +  rte_update_unlock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> return best;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1097,21 +1122,6 @@
>>>>> rte_free_quick(old);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static int rte_update_nest_cnt; /* Nesting counter to allow
>>>>> recursive
>>>>> updates */
>>>>> -
>>>>> -static inline void
>>>>> -rte_update_lock(void)
>>>>> -{
>>>>> -  rte_update_nest_cnt++;
>>>>> -}
>>>>> -
>>>>> -static inline void
>>>>> -rte_update_unlock(void)
>>>>> -{
>>>>> -  if (!--rte_update_nest_cnt)
>>>>> -    lp_flush(rte_update_pool);
>>>>> -}
>>>>> -
>>>>> static inline void
>>>>> rte_hide_dummy_routes(net *net, rte **dummy)
>>>>> {
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks fine :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Just
>>>> On 6 September 2016 at 18:03, Justin Cattle <j...@ocado.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for quick response! I will try that as soon as I can,
>>>> hopefully in the next couple of days.
>>>> I'll report back as soon as I know.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Just
>>>>
>>>> On 6 September 2016 at 16:46, Pavel Tvrdík <pavel.tvr...@nic.cz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-05 16:21, Justin Cattle wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> A colleague of mine reported a memory usage issue with the bird
>>>> daemon
>>>> last year, which resulted in a request for a core dump, but we never
>>>> followed it up.
>>>> I'd like to re-open this discussion and see if anything can be done
>>>> to
>>>> fix it.
>>>>
>>>> I'll provide some information regarding a production environment,
>>>> where the problem is most obvious.  But any further details and
>>>> diagnostics will have to come from our lab environment.
>>>> Please note, in production we mostly run 1.5, but in the lab we are
>>>> on
>>>> 1.6, however we see the same symptoms in both environments on both
>>>> versions.
>>>>
>>>> The symptoms are twofold, but potentially related -  greater than
>>>> expected memory usage reported by the bird daemon itself for the
>>>> number of routes, but also massively more memory actually used by
>>>> the
>>>> daemon process.
>>>>
>>>> When the process is started, we see "normal" memory usage, which
>>>> then
>>>> seems to grow indefinitely in distinct steps, separated by a period
>>>> of
>>>> a few hours.
>>>>
>>>> In production, this consumes most of the 32G of memory until the
>>>> kernel oom-killer to intervenes.
>>>>
>>>> Production:
>>>>
>>>> BIRD 1.5.0 ready.
>>>>
>>>> bird> show memory
>>>>
>>>> BIRD memory usage
>>>>
>>>> Routing tables:   1405 MB
>>>>
>>>> Route attributes:   84 kB
>>>>
>>>> ROA tables:        192  B
>>>>
>>>> Protocols:          45 kB
>>>>
>>>> Total:            1405 MB
>>>>
>>>> bird> show route count
>>>>
>>>> 2273 of 2273 routes for 1142 networks
>>>>
>>>> # ps u  -p 3441
>>>>
>>>> USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME
>>>> COMMAND
>>>>
>>>> bird      3441  0.1 55.4 18275124 18241540 ?   Ssl  Aug10  73:39
>>>> /usr/sbin/bird -f -u bird -g bird
>>>>
>>>> ..so that's ~1.4G reported by bird, and ~18G actually consumed by
>>>> the
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> Lab:
>>>>
>>>> BIRD 1.6.0 ready.
>>>>
>>>> bird> show mem
>>>>
>>>> BIRD memory usage
>>>>
>>>> Routing tables:    693 MB
>>>>
>>>> Route attributes:   28 kB
>>>>
>>>> ROA tables:        192  B
>>>>
>>>> Protocols:          41 kB
>>>>
>>>> Total:             693 MB
>>>>
>>>> bird> show route count
>>>>
>>>> 175 of 175 routes for 91 networks
>>>>
>>>> # ps u -p 29085
>>>>
>>>> USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME
>>>> COMMAND
>>>>
>>>> bird     29085  0.0 14.9 4994852 4915032 ?     Ssl  Aug05  19:41
>>>> /usr/sbin/bird -f -u bird -g bird
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this report. I successfully simulated this weird
>>>> behavior
>>>> too. The setting of kernel protocol with some export filter will
>>>> cause
>>>> memory leak bug. I prepared fixing commits in branch
>>>> `krt-export-filtr-fix'
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/bird/commits/krt-export-filtr-fix
>>>> [1] [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you please download it and confirm, that the bug is fixed?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Pavel
>>>>
>>>> ..so that's ~ 0.7G reported by bird, and ~5G actually consumed by
>>>> the
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> I also attached the bird config from the lab.
>>>>
>>>> Any help is much appreciated!
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Just
>>>> Notice:  This email is confidential and may contain copyright
>>>> material
>>>> of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this
>>>> message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the
>>>> members of the Ocado Group.
>>>>
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately
>>>> and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your
>>>> responsibility to scan this message for viruses.
>>>>
>>>> Fetch and Sizzle are trading names of Speciality Stores Limited and
>>>> Fabled is a trading name of Marie Claire Beauty Limited, both
>>>> members
>>>> of the Ocado Group.
>>>>
>>>> References to the “Ocado Group” are to Ocado Group plc
>>>> (registered
>>>> in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary
>>>> undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act
>>>> 2006)
>>>> from time to time.  The registered office of Ocado Group plc is
>>>> Titan
>>>> Court, 3 Bishops Square, Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Herts.
>>>> AL10
>>>> 9NE.
>>>>
>>>> Notice:  This email is confidential and may contain copyright
>>>> material
>>>> of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this
>>>> message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the
>>>> members of the Ocado Group.
>>>>
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately
>>>> and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your
>>>> responsibility to scan this message for viruses.
>>>>
>>>> Fetch and Sizzle are trading names of Speciality Stores Limited and
>>>> Fabled is a trading name of Marie Claire Beauty Limited, both
>>>> members
>>>> of the Ocado Group.
>>>>
>>>> References to the “Ocado Group” are to Ocado Group plc
>>>> (registered
>>>> in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary
>>>> undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act
>>>> 2006)
>>>> from time to time.  The registered office of Ocado Group plc is
>>>> Titan
>>>> Court, 3 Bishops Square, Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Herts.
>>>> AL10
>>>> 9NE.
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>> ------
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/bird/commits/krt-export-filtr-fix
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Notice:  This email is confidential and may contain copyright material
>>> of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this
>>> message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the
>>> members of the Ocado Group.
>>>
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately
>>> and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your
>>> responsibility to scan this message for viruses.
>>>
>>> Fetch and Sizzle are trading names of Speciality Stores Limited and
>>> Fabled is a trading name of Marie Claire Beauty Limited, both members
>>> of the Ocado Group.
>>>
>>> References to the “Ocado Group” are to Ocado Group plc (registered
>>> in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary
>>> undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006)
>>> from time to time.  The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Titan
>>> Court, 3 Bishops Square, Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Herts. AL10
>>> 9NE.
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/bird/commits/krt-export-filtr-fix
>>>
>>
>

-- 


Notice:  This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of 
members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message 
may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the 
Ocado Group. 

 

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and 
delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your 
responsibility to scan this message for viruses. 

 

Fetch and Sizzle are trading names of Speciality Stores Limited and Fabled 
is a trading name of Marie Claire Beauty Limited, both members of the Ocado 
Group.

 

References to the “Ocado Group” are to Ocado Group plc (registered in 
England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as 
that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. 
 The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Titan Court, 3 Bishops Square, 
Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9NE.

Reply via email to