c3d9b36035
Chasing why the reverse-direction reclaim never fired turned up something worse than the reclaim itself. The starvation check was never running. Instrumenting the watchdog showed busy=6, idle_check=0: every poll took the "ComfyUI is busy" branch. ComfyUI's /queue was reporting a WAN 2.1 i2v job in queue_running while the GPU sat at 0% and ComfyUI held 0.56 GB. The job was dead; ComfyUI had simply never cleared the row. Believing that flag meant this service thought ComfyUI was permanently busy, so it yielded the LLM's VRAM on every poll, never ran the idle purge, and never checked whether the LLM had been squeezed onto the CPU. One stale row disabled half of the arbitration, and it very likely explains the earlier burst of yields against a cron-driven model. A running entry is now corroborated before it is believed. The first attempt used GPU utilisation, which does not work: utilisation is shared with Ollama and with the third-party process on this box, so peak utilisation stayed above any sensible threshold and a stuck entry never looked stale. ComfyUI's own VRAM is the right signal -- a real diffusion job loads gigabytes of checkpoint, a dead one holds only its CUDA context. After the fix the same watchdog reports busy=3, idle_check=32. Every early return in the starvation check now records why it bailed, because with four of them there was no way to tell which had fired. /api/health reports a stale queue entry with its impact and how to clear it. Also confirmed, contradicting an earlier conclusion in this branch: Ollama on this box *does* spill to the CPU. smtek/Qwen3.8-27B:Q2_K_XL held steady at 29.2% on GPU (size=15.59 GB, size_vram=4.56 GB) across twelve seconds of polling -- a stable placement, not a progressive load. Both failure modes are real; which one occurs depends on the model. Tests: 206 (was 199). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
13 KiB
13 KiB