For my application, the memory used by the Java process is much more than the heap size.
The system where the containers are running starts to have memory problem because the container is taking much more memory than the heap size.
The heap size is set to 128 MB (-Xmx128m -Xms128m) while the container takes up to 1GB of memory. Under normal condition, it needs 500MB. If the docker container has a limit below (e.g. mem_limit=mem_limit=400MB) the process gets killed by the out of memory killer of the OS.
Could you explain why the Java process is using much more memory than the heap? How to size correctly the Docker memory limit? Is there a way to reduce the off-heap memory footprint of the Java process?
I gather some details about the issue using command from Native memory tracking in JVM.
From the host system, I get the memory used by the container.
$ docker stats --no-stream 9afcb62a26c8
CONTAINER ID NAME CPU % MEM USAGE / LIMIT MEM % NET I/O BLOCK I/O PIDS
9afcb62a26c8 xx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.0acbb46bb6fe3ae1b1c99aff3a6073bb7b7ecf85 0.93% 461MiB / 9.744GiB 4.62% 286MB / 7.92MB 157MB / 2.66GB 57
From inside the container, I get the memory used by the process.
$ ps -p 71 -o pcpu,rss,size,vsize
%CPU RSS SIZE VSZ
11.2 486040 580860 3814600
$ jcmd 71 VM.native_memory
71:
Native Memory Tracking:
Total: reserved=1631932KB, committed=367400KB
- Java Heap (reserved=131072KB, committed=131072KB)
(mmap: reserved=131072KB, committed=131072KB)
- Class (reserved=1120142KB, committed=79830KB)
(classes #15267)
( instance classes #14230, array classes #1037)
(malloc=1934KB #32977)
(mmap: reserved=1118208KB, committed=77896KB)
( Metadata: )
( reserved=69632KB, committed=68272KB)
( used=66725KB)
( free=1547KB)
( waste=0KB =0.00%)
( Class space:)
( reserved=1048576KB, committed=9624KB)
( used=8939KB)
( free=685KB)
( waste=0KB =0.00%)
- Thread (reserved=24786KB, committed=5294KB)
(thread #56)
(stack: reserved=24500KB, committed=5008KB)
(malloc=198KB #293)
(arena=88KB #110)
- Code (reserved=250635KB, committed=45907KB)
(malloc=2947KB #13459)
(mmap: reserved=247688KB, committed=42960KB)
- GC (reserved=48091KB, committed=48091KB)
(malloc=10439KB #18634)
(mmap: reserved=37652KB, committed=37652KB)
- Compiler (reserved=358KB, committed=358KB)
(malloc=249KB #1450)
(arena=109KB #5)
- Internal (reserved=1165KB, committed=1165KB)
(malloc=1125KB #3363)
(mmap: reserved=40KB, committed=40KB)
- Other (reserved=16696KB, committed=16696KB)
(malloc=16696KB #35)
- Symbol (reserved=15277KB, committed=15277KB)
(malloc=13543KB #180850)
(arena=1734KB #1)
- Native Memory Tracking (reserved=4436KB, committed=4436KB)
(malloc=378KB #5359)
(tracking overhead=4058KB)
- Shared class space (reserved=17144KB, committed=17144KB)
(mmap: reserved=17144KB, committed=17144KB)
- Arena Chunk (reserved=1850KB, committed=1850KB)
(malloc=1850KB)
- Logging (reserved=4KB, committed=4KB)
(malloc=4KB #179)
- Arguments (reserved=19KB, committed=19KB)
(malloc=19KB #512)
- Module (reserved=258KB, committed=258KB)
(malloc=258KB #2356)
$ cat /proc/71/smaps | grep Rss | cut -d: -f2 | tr -d " " | cut -f1 -dk | sort -n | awk '{ sum += $1 } END { print sum }'
491080
The application is a web server using Jetty/Jersey/CDI bundled inside a fat far of 36 MB.
The following version of OS and Java are used (inside the container). The Docker image is based on openjdk:11-jre-slim.
$ java -version
openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 11+28-Debian-1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 11+28-Debian-1, mixed mode, sharing)
$ uname -a
Linux service1 4.9.125-linuxkit #1 SMP Fri Sep 7 08:20:28 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux
https://gist.github.com/prasanthj/48e7063cac88eb396bc9961fb3149b58
Virtual memory used by a Java process extends far beyond just Java Heap. You know, JVM includes many subsytems: Garbage Collector, Class Loading, JIT compilers etc., and all these subsystems require certain amount of RAM to function.
JVM is not the only consumer of RAM. Native libraries (including standard Java Class Library) may also allocate native memory. And this won't be even visible to Native Memory Tracking. Java application itself can also use off-heap memory by means of direct ByteBuffers.
So what takes memory in a Java process?
JVM parts (mostly shown by Native Memory Tracking)
1. Java Heap
The most obvious part. This is where Java objects live. Heap takes up to -Xmx amount of memory.
2. Garbage Collector
GC structures and algorithms require additional memory for heap management. These structures are Mark Bitmap, Mark Stack (for traversing object graph), Remembered Sets (for recording inter-region references) and others. Some of them are directly tunable, e.g. -XX:MarkStackSizeMax, others depend on heap layout, e.g. the larger are G1 regions (-XX:G1HeapRegionSize), the smaller are remembered sets.
GC memory overhead varies between GC algorithms. -XX:+UseSerialGC and -XX:+UseShenandoahGC have the smallest overhead. G1 or CMS may easily use around 10% of total heap size.
3. Code Cache
Contains dynamically generated code: JIT-compiled methods, interpreter and run-time stubs. Its size is limited by -XX:ReservedCodeCacheSize (240M by default). Turn off -XX:-TieredCompilation to reduce the amount of compiled code and thus the Code Cache usage.
4. Compiler
JIT compiler itself also requires memory to do its job. This can be reduced again by switching off Tiered Compilation or by reducing the number of compiler threads: -XX:CICompilerCount.
5. Class loading
Class metadata (method bytecodes, symbols, constant pools, annotations etc.) is stored in off-heap area called Metaspace. The more classes are loaded - the more metaspace is used. Total usage can be limited by -XX:MaxMetaspaceSize (unlimited by default) and -XX:CompressedClassSpaceSize (1G by default).
6. Symbol tables
Two main hashtables of the JVM: the Symbol table contains names, signatures, identifiers etc. and the String table contains references to interned strings. If Native Memory Tracking indicates significant memory usage by a String table, it probably means the application excessively calls String.intern.
7. Threads
Thread stacks are also responsible for taking RAM. The stack size is controlled by -Xss. The default is 1M per thread, but fortunately things are not so bad. The OS allocates memory pages lazily, i.e. on the first use, so the actual memory usage will be much lower (typically 80-200 KB per thread stack). I wrote a script to estimate how much of RSS belongs to Java thread stacks.
There are other JVM parts that allocate native memory, but they do not usually play a big role in total memory consumption.
Direct buffers
An application may explicitly request off-heap memory by calling ByteBuffer.allocateDirect. The default off-heap limit is equal to -Xmx, but it can be overridden with -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize. Direct ByteBuffers are included in Other section of NMT output (or Internal before JDK 11).
The amount of direct memory in use is visible through JMX, e.g. in JConsole or Java Mission Control:
Besides direct ByteBuffers there can be MappedByteBuffers - the files mapped to virtual memory of a process. NMT does not track them, however, MappedByteBuffers can also take physical memory. And there is no a simple way to limit how much they can take. You can just see the actual usage by looking at process memory map: pmap -x <pid>
Address Kbytes RSS Dirty Mode Mapping
...
00007f2b3e557000 39592 32956 0 r--s- some-file-17405-Index.db
00007f2b40c01000 39600 33092 0 r--s- some-file-17404-Index.db
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Native libraries
JNI code loaded by System.loadLibrary can allocate as much off-heap memory as it wants with no control from JVM side. This also concerns standard Java Class Library. In particular, unclosed Java resources may become a source of native memory leak. Typical examples are ZipInputStream or DirectoryStream.
JVMTI agents, in particular, jdwp debugging agent - can also cause excessive memory consumption.
This answer describes how to profile native memory allocations with async-profiler.
Allocator issues
A process typically requests native memory either directly from OS (by mmap system call) or by using malloc - standard libc allocator. In turn, malloc requests big chunks of memory from OS using mmap, and then manages these chunks according to its own allocation algorithm. The problem is - this algorithm can lead to fragmentation and excessive virtual memory usage.
jemalloc, an alternative allocator, often appears smarter than regular libc malloc, so switching to jemalloc may result in a smaller footprint for free.
Conclusion
There is no guaranteed way to estimate full memory usage of a Java process, because there are too many factors to consider.
Total memory = Heap + Code Cache + Metaspace + Symbol tables +
Other JVM structures + Thread stacks +
Direct buffers + Mapped files +
Native Libraries + Malloc overhead + ...
It is possible to shrink or limit certain memory areas (like Code Cache) by JVM flags, but many others are out of JVM control at all.
One possible approach to setting Docker limits would be to watch the actual memory usage in a "normal" state of the process. There are tools and techniques for investigating issues with Java memory consumption: Native Memory Tracking, pmap, jemalloc, async-profiler.
Update
Here is a recording of my presentation Memory Footprint of a Java Process.
In this video, I discuss what may consume memory in a Java process, how to monitor and restrain the size of certain memory areas, and how to profile native memory leaks in a Java application.
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/04/04/openjdk-and-containers/:
Why is it when I specify -Xmx=1g my JVM uses up more memory than 1gb
of memory?
Specifying -Xmx=1g is telling the JVM to allocate a 1gb heap. It’s not
telling the JVM to limit its entire memory usage to 1gb. There are
card tables, code caches, and all sorts of other off heap data
structures. The parameter you use to specify total memory usage is
-XX:MaxRAM. Be aware that with -XX:MaxRam=500m your heap will be approximately 250mb.
Java sees host memory size and it is not aware of any container memory limitations. It doesn't create memory pressure, so GC also doesn't need to release used memory. I hope XX:MaxRAM will help you to reduce memory footprint. Eventually, you can tweak GC configuration (-XX:MinHeapFreeRatio,-XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio, ...)
There is many types of memory metrics. Docker seems to be reporting RSS memory size, that can be different than "committed" memory reported by jcmd (older versions of Docker report RSS+cache as memory usage).
Good discussion and links: Difference between Resident Set Size (RSS) and Java total committed memory (NMT) for a JVM running in Docker container
(RSS) memory can be eaten also by some other utilities in the container - shell, process manager, ... We don't know what else is running in the container and how do you start processes in container.
TL;DR
The detail usage of the memory is provided by Native Memory Tracking (NMT) details (mainly code metadata and garbage collector). In addition to that, the Java compiler and optimizer C1/C2 consume the memory not reported in the summary.
The memory footprint can be reduced using JVM flags (but there is impacts).
The Docker container sizing must be done through testing with the expected load the application.
Detail for each components
The shared class space can be disabled inside a container since the classes won't be shared by another JVM process. The following flag can be used. It will remove the shared class space (17MB).
-Xshare:off
The garbage collector serial has a minimal memory footprint at the cost of longer pause time during garbage collect processing (see Aleksey Shipilëv comparison between GC in one picture). It can be enabled with the following flag. It can save up to the GC space used (48MB).
-XX:+UseSerialGC
The C2 compiler can be disabled with the following flag to reduce profiling data used to decide whether to optimize or not a method.
-XX:+TieredCompilation -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1
The code space is reduced by 20MB. Moreover, the memory outside JVM is reduced by 80MB (difference between NMT space and RSS space). The optimizing compiler C2 needs 100MB.
The C1 and C2 compilers can be disabled with the following flag.
-Xint
The memory outside the JVM is now lower than the total committed space. The code space is reduced by 43MB. Beware, this has a major impact on the performance of the application. Disabling C1 and C2 compiler reduces the memory used by 170 MB.
Using Graal VM compiler (replacement of C2) leads to a bit smaller memory footprint. It increases of 20MB the code memory space and decreases of 60MB from outside JVM memory.
The article Java Memory Management for JVM provides some relevant information the different memory spaces.
Oracle provides some details in Native Memory Tracking documentation. More details about compilation level in advanced compilation policy and in disable C2 reduce code cache size by a factor 5. Some details on Why does a JVM report more committed memory than the Linux process resident set size? when both compilers are disabled.
Java needs a lot a memory. JVM itself needs a lot of memory to run. The heap is the memory which is available inside the virtual machine, available to your application. Because JVM is a big bundle packed with all goodies possible it takes a lot of memory just to load.
Starting with java 9 you have something called project Jigsaw, which might reduce the memory used when you start a java app(along with start time). Project jigsaw and a new module system were not necessarily created to reduce the necessary memory, but if it's important you can give a try.
You can take a look at this example: https://steveperkins.com/using-java-9-modularization-to-ship-zero-dependency-native-apps/. By using the module system it resulted in CLI application of 21MB(with JRE embeded). JRE takes more than 200mb. That should translate to less allocated memory when the application is up(a lot of unused JRE classes will no longer be loaded).
Here is another nice tutorial: https://www.baeldung.com/project-jigsaw-java-modularity
If you don't want to spend time with this you can simply get allocate more memory. Sometimes it's the best.
How to size correctly the Docker memory limit?
Check the application by monitoring it for some-time. To restrict container's memory try using -m, --memory bytes option for docker run command - or something equivalant if you are running it otherwise
like
docker run -d --name my-container --memory 500m <iamge-name>
can't answer other questions.
If I've allocated an image in memory that IS NOT host-visible then I get a staging buffer that IS host-visible so I can write to it. I memcpy into that buffer, and then I do a vkCmdCopyBufferToImage.
However let's say we're running on hardware where the device-local image memory is also host-visible, is it more efficient and better to just memcpy into this image memory? In what image layout does the image need to be in if memcpying straight into it? Transfer destination? How would this work mip levels? In the copy buffer to image method you specify each mip level, but if memcpying in how do you do this? Or do just not? And just do the extra copy to the host-visible staging buffer and then do copy buffer to image?
VK_IMAGE_TILING_OPTIMAL arrangement is implementation-dependent and unexposed.
VK_IMAGE_TILING_LINEAR arrangement is whatever vkGetImageSubresourceLayout says it is.
The device-local host-visible memory on current desktop GPUs have a specific purpose. But anyway, you wouldn't have access to most of the GPU capacity this way.
If you do it the right way™, then there is already only one transfer. The memcpy is unnecessary. Either you build your linear image directly in Vulkan's memory, or you cast your arbitrary memory to Vulkan with VK_EXT_external_memory_host.
In what image layout does the image need to be in if memcpying straight into it?
Host writes are either VK_IMAGE_LAYOUT_PREINITIALIZED or VK_IMAGE_LAYOUT_GENERAL.
How would this work mip levels?
vkGetImageSubresourceLayout() gives pLayout->offset and pLayout->size saying where subresource starts and ends.
I have read that malloc has multiple implementations which are platform depended.
How does it work in an embedded device in bare metal programming?
Let's suppose we have an mcu with 256KB FLASH memory and 64KB RAM.
How does it know how much available RAM there is from my program?
For bare metal systems, you'll have a specific segment allocated in the linker script, often called .heap. There is no such thing as memory sharing between processes, meaning that the heap must have a fixed maximum size and therefore is pretty useless in general. malloc doesn't know a thing about how much RAM your program uses since there is no desktop OS in sight.
Your RAM is divided into .stack, .data, .bss and .heap, each with its own fixed maximum size. More about these segments here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/237759/6102. In a typical bare metal MCU application, most of the RAM will be reserved for .data and .bss. You will have something from 128 bytes up to several kb reserved for the stack. You will typically not have a heap at all - but if you do, it will sit there and take up a fixed amount of x kb no matter how much of it you actually use.
malloc in itself could be implemented in different ways indeed. Either you include a "header" together with each allocated segment, the header stating the allocated size and potentially the address of the next available free segment. Or you could implement it as a look-up table where each item is a pointer to the first element and the size.
None of this is particularly relevant, since you shouldn't be using heap allocation in embedded systems. The main reason being that it doesn't make any sense. You don't want arbitrary behavior, you want deteministic behavior. You want to allocate x amount of memory for the worst case and if a heap was to be used it would have to be at least that large anyway, so you gain nothing but bloat from using a heap. Then comes all the usual problems with allocation overhead, fragmentation and leaks.
For bare metal/RTOS applications, do yourself a favour and delete .heap from your linker script, then forget that you ever heard about malloc. A MCU is not a PC.
It is not clear what the difference is between MaxDirectMemorySize and Dstorage.diskCache.bufferSize. They both seem to be off heap. Are they redundant when both are specified?
Docs : The size of direct memory consumed by OrientDB is limited by
the size of the disk cache (variable storage.diskCache.bufferSize). https://orientdb.com/docs/2.2/Embedded-Server.html
The docs seem to imply that they refer to the same space, but that the driectmemorysize is limited by the buffer size. Is this correct?
MaxDirectMemorySize is a JVM setting that limits all direct byte buffer allocations within that JVM instance.
storage.diskCache.bufferSize is an application setting that limits direct byte buffer allocations for the purpose of IO caching in orientdb.
Im trying to work around an issue which has been bugging me for a while. In a nutshell: on which basis should one assign a max heap space for resource-hogging application and is there a downside for tit being too large?
I have an application used to visualize huge medical datas, which can eat up to several gigabytes of memory if several imaging volumes are opened size by side. Caching the data to be viewed is essential for fluent workflow. The software is supported with windows workstations and is started with a bootloader, which assigns the heap size and launches the main application. The actual memory needed by main application is directly proportional to the data being viewed and cannot be determined by the bootloader, because it would require reading the data, which would, ultimately, consume too much time.
So, to ensure that the JVM has enough memory during launch we set up xmx as large as we dare based, by current design, on the max physical memory of the workstation. However, is there any downside to this? I've read (from a post from 2008) that it is possible for native processes to hog up excess heap space, which can lead to memory errors during runtime. Should I maybe also sniff for free virtualmemory or paging file size prior to assigning heap space? How would you deal with this situation?
Oh, and this is my first post to these forums. Nice to meet you all and be gentle! :)
Update:
Thanks for all the answers. I'm not sure if I put my words right, but my problem rose from the fact that I have zero knowledge of the hardware this software will be run on but would, nevertheless, like to assign as much heap space for the software as possible.
I came to a solution of assigning a heap of 70% of physical memory IF there is sufficient amount of virtual memory available - less otherwise.
You can have heap sizes of around 28 GB with little impact on performance esp if you have large objects. (lots of small objects can impact GC pause times)
Heap sizes of 100 GB are possible but have down sides, mostly because they can have high pause times. If you use Azul Zing, it can handle much larger heap sizes significantly more gracefully.
The main limitation is the size of your memory. If you heap exceeds that, your application and your computer will run very slower/be unusable.
A standard way around these issues with mapping software (which has to be able to map the whole world for example) is it break your images into tiles. This way you only display the image which is one the screen (or portions which are on the screen) If you need to be able to zoom in and out you might need to store data at two to four levels of scale. Using this approach you can view a map of the whole world on your phone.
Best to not set JVM max memory to greater than 60-70% of workstation memory, in some cases even lower, for two main reasons. First, what the JVM consumes on the physical machine can be 20% or more greater than heap, due to GC mechanics. Second, the representation of a particular data entity in the JVM heap may not be the only physical copy of that entity in the machine's RAM, as the OS has caches and buffers and so forth around the various IO devices from which it grabs these objects.