From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCF52CCAB for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:35:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9863117DB6 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:35:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id 942EE2C13AD; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:35:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Hanreich To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:34:54 +0200 Message-Id: <20230816143454.2225673-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.428 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [osd.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] api: ceph: improve reporting of ceph OSD memory usage X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:35:32 -0000 Currently we are using the MemoryCurrent property of the OSD service to determine the used memory of a Ceph OSD. This includes, among other things, the memory used by buffers [1]. Since BlueFS uses buffered I/O, this can lead to extremely high values shown in the UI. Instead we are now reading the PSS value from the proc filesystem, which should more accurately reflect the amount of memory currently used by the Ceph OSD. We decided on PSS over RSS, since this should give a better idea of used memory - particularly when using a large amount of OSDs on one host, since the OSDs share some of the pages. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich --- PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm | 19 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm index ded359904..5f7718b0a 100644 --- a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm +++ b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm @@ -687,13 +687,10 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ my $raw = ''; my $pid; - my $memory; my $parser = sub { my $line = shift; if ($line =~ m/^MainPID=([0-9]*)$/) { $pid = $1; - } elsif ($line =~ m/^MemoryCurrent=([0-9]*|\[not set\])$/) { - $memory = $1 eq "[not set]" ? 0 : $1; } }; @@ -702,12 +699,24 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ 'show', "ceph-osd\@${osdid}.service", '--property', - 'MainPID,MemoryCurrent', + 'MainPID', ]; run_command($cmd, errmsg => 'fetching OSD PID and memory usage failed', outfunc => $parser); $pid = defined($pid) ? int($pid) : undef; - $memory = defined($memory) ? int($memory) : undef; + + my $memory; + if ($pid && $pid > 0) { + open (my $SMAPS, '<', "/proc/$pid/smaps_rollup") + or die 'Could not open smaps_rollup for Ceph OSD'; + + while (my $line = <$SMAPS>) { + if ($line =~ m/^Pss:\s+([0-9]+) kB$/) { + $memory = $1 * 1024; + last; + } + } + } my $data = { osd => { -- 2.39.2