I see this comment in the Perfmon counter "Memory"-"Working Set" description:
If free memory in the computer is above a threshold, pages are left in
the Working Set of a process even if they are not in use. When free
memory falls below a threshold, pages are trimmed from Working Sets.
I haven't been able to find any documentation regarding this threshold value. It is a percentage of available RAM? Is it when the Commit Charge consumes all available RAM? How does the system treat Kernel pages, vs User mode pages?
So my questions are:
What is that threshold?
Is there a way to detect it?
Do different versions of windows have different behavior or thresholds?
The scenario is that my process will try to use as much memory as there is available physical RAM. Once that limit is reached I can deallocate and cache on disk certain chunks of memory to make room for new stuff. It does this to help alleviate page file thrashing when memory conditions are low. I'd like to perform the deallocation BEFORE the memory manager begins swapping pages to disk because the memory usage has passed the magic threshold.
I currently use the MEMORYSTATUSEX::ullAvailPhys value (filled by GlobalMemoryStatusEx) to identify the amount of available physical memory.
Windows uses as much RAM as possible either for programs and for disk-cache so it doesn't swap tremendously at some point...
if you want more RAM for running application you have to diminish the disk-cache.
There is a tool to set the disk-cache by SysInternal.
cacheset.exe
You can find it here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897561.aspx
Related
On Windows 32-bit system the application is being developed using Visual Studio:
Lets say lots of other application running on my machine and they have occupied almost all of physical memory and only 1 MB memory is left free. If my application (which has not yet allocated any memory) tries to allocate, say 2 MB, will the call be successful?
My guess: In theory, each Windows application has 2GB of virtual memory available.
So I believe this call should be successful (regardless how much physical memory is available). But I am not sure on this. That's why asking here.
Windows gives a rock-hard guarantee that this will always work. A process can only allocate virtual memory when Windows can commit space in the paging file for the allocation. If necessary, it will grow the paging file to make the space available. If that fails, for example when the paging file grows beyond the preset limit, then the allocation fails as well. Windows doesn't have the equivalent of the Linux "OOM killer", it does not support over-committing that may require an operating system to start randomly killing processes to find RAM.
Do note that the "always works" clause does have a sting. There is no guarantee on how long this will take. In very extreme circumstances the machine can start thrashing where just about every memory access in the running processes causes a page fault. Code execution slows down to a crawl, you can lose control with the mouse pointer frozen when Explorer or the mouse or video driver start thrashing as well. You are well past the point of shopping for RAM when that happens. Windows applies quotas to processes to prevent them from hogging the machine, but if you have enough processes running then that doesn't necessarily avoid the problem.
Of course. It would be lousy design if memory had to be wasted now in order to be used later. Operating systems constantly re-purpose memory to its most advantageous use at any moment. They don't have to waste memory by keeping it free just so that it can be used later.
This is one of the benefits of virtual memory with a page file. Because the memory is virtual, the system can allocate more virtual memory than physical memory. Virtual memory that cannot fit in physical memory, is pushed out to the page file.
So the fact that your system may be using all of the physical memory does not mean that your program will not be able to allocate memory. In the scenario that you describe, your 2MB memory allocation will succeed. If you then access that memory, the virtual memory will be paged in to physical memory and very likely some other pages (maybe in your process, maybe in another process) will be pushed out to the page file.
Well, it will succeed as long as there's some memory for it - apart from physical memory, there's also the page file.
However, once you reach the limit of both RAM and the page file, you're done for and that's when the out of memory situation really starts being fun.
Now, systems like Windows Vista will try to use all of your available RAM, pretty much for caching. That's a good thing, and when there's a request for memory from an application, the cache will be thrown away as needed.
As for virtual memory, you can request much more than you have available, regardless of your RAM or page file size. Only when you commit the memory does it actually need some backing - either RAM or the page file. On 64-bit, you can easily request terabytes of virtual memory - that doesn't mean you'll get it when you try to commit it, though :P
If your application is unable to allocate a physical memory (RAM) block to store information, the operating system takes over and 'pages' or stores sections that are in RAM on disk to free up physical memory so that your program is able to perform the allocation. This is done automatically and is completely invisible to your applications.
So, in your example, on a system that has 1MB RAM free, if your application tries to allocate memory, the operating system will page certain contents of physical memory to disk and free up RAM for your application. Your application will not crash in this case.
This, obviously is much more complicated than that.
There are several ways to configure a page file on Windows (fixed size, variable size and on which disk). If you run out of physical memory, and out of hard drive space (because your page file has grown very large due to excessive 'paging') or reach the limit of your paging file (if it is a static limit) then your applications will fail due out an out-of-memory exception. With today's systems with large local storage however, this is a rare event.
Be sure to read about paging for the full picture. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paging
In certain cases, you will notice that you have sufficient free physical memory. Say 100MB and your program tries to allocate a 10MB block to store a large object but fails. This is caused by physical memory fragmentation. Although the total free memory is 100MB, there is no single contiguous block of 10MB that can be used to store your object. This will result in an exception that needs to be handled in your code. If you allocate large objects in your code you may want to separate the allocation into smaller blocks to facilitate allocation, and then aggregate them back in your code logic. For example, instead of having a single 10m vector, you can declare 10 x 1m vectors in an array and allocate memory for each individual one.
I'm confused about the windows task manager memory overview.
in the general memory overview it shows "in use" 7.9gb (in my sample)
.
I've used process explorer to sum up the used memory and it shows me the following:
Since this is the nearest number to the 7.9gb of the task manager, i guess this value is shown there.
Now my question:
What is the Peak working set?
If i hoover over the column in task manager, it says:
and the microsoft help says Maximum amount of working set memory used by the process.
Is it now the effective used memory of all processes, or is it the maximum of memory which was used by all process?
The number you refer to is "Memory used by processes, drivers and the operating system" [source].
This is an easy but somewhat vague description. A somewhat similar description would be the total amount of memory that is not free, or part of the buffer cache, or part of the standby list.
It is not the maximum memory used at some time ("peak"), it's a coincidence that you have roughly the same number there. It is the presently used amount (used by "everyone", that is all programs and the OS).
The peak working set is a different thing. The working set is the amount of memory in a process (or, if you consider several processes, in all these processes) that is currently in physical memory. The peak working set is, consequently, the maximum value so far seen.
A process may allocate more memory than it actually ever commits ("uses"), and most processes will commit more memory than they have in their working set at one time. This is perfectly normal. Pages are moved in and out of working sets (and into the standby list) to assure that the computer, which has only a finite amount of memory, always has enough reserves to satisfy any memory needs.
The memory figures in question aren't actually a reliable indicator of how much memory a process is using.
A brief explanation of each of the memory relationships:
Private Bytes are what the process is allocated, also with pagefile usage.
Working Set is the non-paged Private Bytes plus memory-mapped files.
Virtual Bytes are the Working Set plus paged Private Bytes and
standby list.
In answer to your question the peak working set is the maximum amount of physical RAM that was assigned to the process in question.
~ Update ~
Available memory is defined as the sum of the standby list plus free memory. There is far more to total memory usage than the sum all process working sets. Because of this and due to memory sharing this value is not generally very useful.
The virtual size of a process is the portion of a process virtual address space that has been allocated for use. There is no relationship between this and physical memory usage.
Private bytes is the portion of a processes virtual address space that has been allocated for private use. It does not include shared memory or that used for code. There is no relationship between this value and physical memory usage either.
Working set is the amount of physical memory in use by a process. Due to memory sharing there will be some double counting in this value.
The terms mentioned above aren't really going to mean very much until you understand the basic concepts in Windows memory management. Have a look HERE for some further reading.
I have a 2GB RAM and running a memory intensive application and going to low available physical memory state and system is not responding to user actions, like opening any application or menu invocation etc.
How do I trigger or tell the system to swap the memory to pagefile and free physical memory?
I'm using Windows XP.
If I run the same application on 4GB RAM machine it is not the case, system response is good. After getting choked of available physical memory system automatically swaps to pagefile and free physical memory, not that bad as 2GB system.
To overcome this problem (on 2GB machine) attempted to use memory mapped files for large dataset which are allocated by application. In this case virtual memory of the application(process) is fine but system cache is high and same problem as above that physical memory is less.
Even though memory mapped file is not mapped to process virtual memory system cache is high. why???!!! :(
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
If your data access pattern for using the memory mapped file is sequential, you might get slightly better page recycling by specifying the FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN flag when opening the underlying file. If your data pattern accesses the mapped file in random order, this won't help.
You should consider decreasing the size of your map view. That's where all the memory is actually consumed and cached. Since it appears that you need to handle files that are larger than available contiguous free physical memory, you can probably do a better job of memory management than the virtual memory page swapper since you know more about how you're using the memory than the virtual memory manager does. If at all possible, try to adjust your design so that you can operate on portions of the large file using a smaller view.
Even if you can't get rid of the need for full random access across the entire range of the underlying file, it might still be beneficial to tear down and recreate the view as needed to move the view to the section of the file that the next operation needs to access. If your data access patterns tend to cluster around parts of the file before moving on, then you won't need to move the view as often. You'll take a hit to tear down and recreate the view object, but since tearing down the view also releases all the cached pages associated with the view, it seems likely you'd see a net gain in performance because the smaller view significantly reduces memory pressure and page swapping system wide. Try setting the size of the view based on a portion of the installed system RAM and move the view around as needed by your file processing. The larger the view, the less you'll need to move it around, but the more RAM it will consume potentially impacting system responsiveness.
As I think you are hinting in your post, the slow response time is probably at least partially due to delays in the system while the OS writes the contents of memory to the pagefile to make room for other processes in physical memory.
The obvious solution (and possibly not practical) is to use less memory in your application. I'll assume that is not an option or at least not a simple option. The alternative is to try to proactively flush data to disk to continually keep available physical memory for other applications to run. You can find the total memory on the machine with GlobalMemoryStatusEx. And GetProcessMemoryInfo will return current information about your own application's memory usage. Since you say you are using a memory mapped file, you may need to account for that in addition. For example, I believe the PageFileUsage information returned from that API will not include information about your own memory mapped file.
If your application is monitoring the usage, you may be able to use FlushViewOfFile to proactively force data to disk from memory. There is also an API (EmptyWorkingSet) that I think attempts to write as many dirty pages to disk as possible, but that seems like it would very likely hurt performance of your own application significantly. Although, it could be useful in a situation where you know your application is going into some kind of idle state.
And, finally, one other API that might be useful is SetProcessWorkingSetSizeEx. You might consider using this API to give a hint on an upper limit for your application's working set size. This might help preserve more memory for other applications.
Edit: This is another obvious statement, but I forgot to mention it earlier. It also may not be practical for you, but it sounds like one of the best things you might do considering that you are running into 32-bit limitations is to build your application as 64-bit and run it on a 64-bit OS (and throw a little bit more memory at the machine).
Well, it sounds like your program needs more than 2GB of working set.
Modern operating systems are designed to use most of the RAM for something at all times, only keeping a fairly small amount free so that it can be immediately handed out to processes that need more. The rest is used to hold memory pages and cached disk blocks that have been used recently; whatever hasn't been used recently is flushed back to disk to replenish the pool of free pages. In short, there isn't supposed to be much free physical memory.
The principle difference between using a normal memory allocation and memory mapped a files is where the data gets stored when it must be paged out of memory. It doesn't necessarily have any effect on when the memory will be paged out, and will have little effect on the time it takes to page it out.
The real problem you are seeing is probably not that you have too little free physical memory, but that the paging rate is too high.
My suggestion would be to attempt to reduce the amount of storage needed by your program, and see if you can increase the locality of reference to reduce the amount of paging needed.
I'm trying to do a very rough measurement of the amount of memory my large financial calculation requires in order to run. Its a very simple command line tool which prices up a large number of financial instruments and then prints out a result.
I decided to use Process Explorer to view the memory requirements of the program. Can somebody kindly explain the difference between the two fields labeled a and b in the screenshot:
I currently believe that:
The value labeled "a" (Peak Private Bytes) is the largest amount of memory (both actual physical memory and virtual memory on disk) which was allocated to the process at any instantaneous moment.
The value labeled "b" (Peal Working Set) is the largest amount of physical memory allocated at any instant during the life of the process.
From here:
The working set is the set of memory pages that were touched recently by the threads in the process. If free memory in the computer is above a threshold, pages are left in the working set of a process, even if they are not in use. When free memory falls below a threshold, pages are trimmed from working sets. If the pages are needed, they will be soft-faulted back into the working set before leaving main memory.
[Private bytes are] bytes, that this process has allocated that cannot be shared with other processes.
What "peak" means in that context should be obvious.
Random thoughts from observations and what the display of Process explorer says.
Working set is in Physical Memory section of the display so anyone saying it is virtual memory is confused. And it changes by odd numbers as RAM usage would normally change so it looks like working set is physical memory.
Private Bytes on the other hand is listed as Virtual memory. And watching it change seems to change is multiples of 16K, as Virtual memory normally changes as it swaps out pages of memory and not just random bits. For some reason I thought this should be 64 k pages but depends on the machine and version of Windows I suppose.
I have a long-running memory hog of an experimental program, and I'd like to know it's actual memory footprint. The Task Manager says (in windows7-64) that the app is consuming 800 mb of memory, but the total amount of memory allocated, also according to the task manager, is 3.7gb. The sum of all the allocated memory does not equal 3.7gb. How can I determine, on the fly, how much memory my application is actually consuming.
Corollary: What memory is the task manager actually reporting? It doesn't seem to be all the memory that's allocated to the app itself.
As I understand it, Task manager shows the Working Set;
working set: The set of memory pages
recently touched by the threads of a
process. If free memory in the
computer is above a threshold, pages
are left in the working set of a
process even if they are not being
used. When free memory falls below a
threshold, pages are trimmed from the
working set.
via http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc432779(PROT.10).aspx
You can get Task Manager to show Virtual Memory as well.
I usually use perfmon (Start -> Run... -> perfmon) to track memory usage, using the Private Bytes counter. It reflects memory allocated by your normal allocators (new/HeapAlloc/malloc, etc).
Memory is a tricky thing to measure. An application might reserve lots of virtual memory but not actually use much of it. Some of the memory might be shared; that is, a shared DLL might be loaded in to the address space of several applications but it is only loaded in to physical memory once.
A good measure is the working set, which is the set of pages in its virtual address space that have been accessed recently. What the meaning of 'accessed recently' is depends on the operating system and its page replacement algorithm. In other words, it is the actual set of virtual pages that are mapped in to physical memory and are in use at the moment. This is what the task manager shows you.
The virtual memory usage is the amount of virtual pages that have been reserved (note that not all of these will have actually been committed, that is, had physical backing store allocated for it. You can add this to the display in task manager by clicking View -> Select Columns.
The most important thing though: If you want to actually measure how much memory your program is using to see if you need to optimize some of it for space or choose better data structures or persist some things to disk, using the task manager is the wrong approach. You should almost certainly be using a profiler.
That depends on what memory you are talking about. Unfortunately there are many different ways to measure memory. For instance ...
Physical Memory Allocated
Virtual Memory Allocated
Virtual Memory Reserved (but not committed)
Private Bytes
Shared Bytes
Which metric are you interested in?
I think most people tend to be interested in the "Virtual Memory Allocated" category.
The memory statistics displayed by task manager are not nearly all the statistics available, nor are particularly well presented. I would use the great free tool from Microsoft Sysinternals, VMMap, to analyse the memory used by the application further.
If it is a long running application, and the memory usage grows over time, it is going to be the heap that is growing. Parts of the heap may or may not be paged out to disk at any time, but you really need to optimize you heap usage. In this case you need to be profile your application. If it is a .Net application then I can recommend Redgate's ANTS profiler. It is very easy to use. If it's a native application, then the Intel vtune profiler is pretty powerful. You don't need the source code for the process you are profiling for either tool.
Both applications have a free trial. Good luck.
P.S. Sorry I didn't include more hyperlinks to the tools, but this is my first post, and stackoverflow limits first posts to one hyperlink :-(