Re: ERROR: could not resize shared memory segment...No space left on device - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:53 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I ran into the same ERROR (not sure if the same
> root cause) while investigating bug #16104 [1], i.e. on a much simpler
> query (single join).
>
> This This particular machine is a bit smaller (only 8GB of RAM and less
> disk space) so I created a smaller table with "just" 1.5B rows:
>
>    create table test as select generate_series(1, 1500000000)::bigint i;
>    set work_mem = '150MB';
>    set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 8;
>    analyze test;
>
>    explain select count(*) from test t1 join test t2 using (i);
>
>                                                   QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Finalize Aggregate  (cost=67527436.36..67527436.37 rows=1 width=8)
>     ->  Gather  (cost=67527435.53..67527436.34 rows=8 width=8)
>           Workers Planned: 8
>           ->  Partial Aggregate  (cost=67526435.53..67526435.54 rows=1 width=8)
>                 ->  Parallel Hash Join  (cost=11586911.03..67057685.47 rows=187500024 width=0)
>                       Hash Cond: (t1.i = t2.i)
>                       ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test t1  (cost=0.00..8512169.24 rows=187500024 width=8)
>                       ->  Parallel Hash  (cost=8512169.24..8512169.24 rows=187500024 width=8)
>                             ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test t2  (cost=0.00..8512169.24 rows=187500024 width=8)
> (9 rows)
>
>    explain analyze select count(*) from test t1 join test t2 using (i);
>
>    ERROR:  could not resize shared memory segment "/PostgreSQL.1743102822" to 536870912 bytes: No space left on
device
>
> Now, work_mem = 150MB might be a bit too high considering the machine
> only has 8GB of RAM (1GB of which is shared_buffers). But that's still
> just 1.2GB of RAM and this is not an OOM. This actually fills the
> /dev/shm mount, which is limited to 4GB on this box
>
>    bench ~ # df | grep shm
>    shm              3994752       16   3994736   1% /dev/shm
>
> So somewhere in the parallel hash join, we allocate 4GB of shared segments ...
>
> The filesystem usage from the moment of the query execution to the
> failure looks about like this:
>
>          Time     fs 1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
>      --------------------------------------------------------------
>      10:13:34    shm   3994752     34744   3960008   1% /dev/shm
>      10:13:35    shm   3994752     35768   3958984   1% /dev/shm
>      10:13:36    shm   3994752     37816   3956936   1% /dev/shm
>      10:13:39    shm   3994752     39864   3954888   1% /dev/shm
>      10:13:42    shm   3994752     41912   3952840   2% /dev/shm
>      10:13:46    shm   3994752     43960   3950792   2% /dev/shm
>      10:13:49    shm   3994752     48056   3946696   2% /dev/shm
>      10:13:56    shm   3994752     52152   3942600   2% /dev/shm
>      10:14:02    shm   3994752     56248   3938504   2% /dev/shm
>      10:14:09    shm   3994752     60344   3934408   2% /dev/shm
>      10:14:16    shm   3994752     68536   3926216   2% /dev/shm
>      10:14:30    shm   3994752     76728   3918024   2% /dev/shm
>      10:14:43    shm   3994752     84920   3909832   3% /dev/shm
>      10:14:43    shm   3994752     84920   3909832   3% /dev/shm
>      10:14:57    shm   3994752     93112   3901640   3% /dev/shm
>      10:15:11    shm   3994752    109496   3885256   3% /dev/shm
>      10:15:38    shm   3994752    125880   3868872   4% /dev/shm
>      10:16:06    shm   3994752    142264   3852488   4% /dev/shm
>      10:19:57    shm   3994752    683208   3311544  18% /dev/shm
>      10:19:58    shm   3994752   1338568   2656184  34% /dev/shm
>      10:20:02    shm   3994752   1600712   2394040  41% /dev/shm
>      10:20:03    shm   3994752   2125000   1869752  54% /dev/shm
>      10:20:04    shm   3994752   2649288   1345464  67% /dev/shm
>      10:20:08    shm   3994752   2518216   1476536  64% /dev/shm
>      10:20:10    shm   3994752   3173576    821176  80% /dev/shm
>      10:20:14    shm   3994752   3697864    296888  93% /dev/shm
>      10:20:15    shm   3994752   3417288    577464  86% /dev/shm
>      10:20:16    shm   3994752   3697864    296888  93% /dev/shm
>      10:20:20    shm   3994752   3828936    165816  96% /dev/shm
>
> And at the end, the contents of /dev/shm looks like this:
>
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  33624064 Dec 16 22:19 PostgreSQL.1005341478
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   1048576 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1011142277
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   1048576 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1047241463
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  16777216 Dec 16 22:16 PostgreSQL.1094702083
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 268435456 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1143288540
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 536870912 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1180709918
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres      7408 Dec 14 15:43 PostgreSQL.1239805533
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 134217728 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1292496162
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 268435456 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.138443773
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   4194304 Dec 16 22:15 PostgreSQL.1442035225
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  67108864 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.147930162
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  16777216 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1525896026
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  67108864 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1541133044
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  33624064 Dec 16 22:14 PostgreSQL.1736434498
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 134217728 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1845631548
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  33624064 Dec 16 22:19 PostgreSQL.1952212453
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 134217728 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.1965950370
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   8388608 Dec 16 22:15 PostgreSQL.1983158004
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  33624064 Dec 16 22:19 PostgreSQL.1997631477
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  16777216 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.2071391455
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   2097152 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.210551357
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  67108864 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.2125755117
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   8388608 Dec 16 22:14 PostgreSQL.2133152910
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   2097152 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.255342242
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   2097152 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.306663870
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 536870912 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.420982703
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 134217728 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.443494372
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 134217728 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.457417415
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   4194304 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.462376479
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  16777216 Dec 16 22:16 PostgreSQL.512403457
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   8388608 Dec 16 22:14 PostgreSQL.546049346
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres    196864 Dec 16 22:13 PostgreSQL.554918510
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres    687584 Dec 16 22:13 PostgreSQL.585813590
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   4194304 Dec 16 22:15 PostgreSQL.612034010
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  33624064 Dec 16 22:19 PostgreSQL.635077233
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres      7408 Dec 15 17:28 PostgreSQL.69856210
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 268435456 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.785623413
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   4194304 Dec 16 22:14 PostgreSQL.802559608
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres  67108864 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.825442833
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   8388608 Dec 16 22:15 PostgreSQL.827813234
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 268435456 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.942923396
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 536870912 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.948192559
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres   2097152 Dec 16 22:20 PostgreSQL.968081079
>
> That's a lot of shared segments, considering there are only ~8 workers
> for the parallel hash join. And some of the segments are 512MB, so not
> exactly tiny/abiding to the work_mem limit :-(
>
> I'm not very familiar with the PHJ internals, but this seems a bit
> excessive. I mean, how am I supposed to limit memory usage in these
> queries? Why shouldn't this be subject to work_mem?

It's subject to work_mem per process (leader + workers).  So it would
like to use 150M * 9 = 1350M, but then there are things that we don't
measure at all, including the per batch data as you were complaining
about in that other thread, and here that's quite extreme because the
bug in question is one that reaches large partition counts.  You're
also looking at the raw shared memory segments, but there is a level
on top of that which is the DSA allocator.  It suffers from
fragmentation like any other general purpose allocator (so maybe it is
backed by something like 2x the memory the client allocated at worst),
though unfortunately, unlike typical allocators, we have to force the
OS to really allocate the memory pages on Linux only or it fails with
SIGBUS later when the kernel can't extend a tmpfs file.