[12] RFR(S): 8177899: Tests fail due to code cache exhaustion on machines with many cores

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Yes, looks good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 10/29/18 6:54 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> thanks for the review!
> 
> Vladimir, are you okay with that version as well?
> 
> Best regards,
> Tobias
> 
> On 29.10.18 14:32, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>> Hi Tobias,
>>
>> thanks for improving. Your update looks good.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>
>> Sent: Montag, 29. Oktober 2018 13:22
>> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>; hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [12] RFR(S): 8177899: Tests fail due to code cache exhaustion on machines with many cores
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 26.10.18 16:21, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>>>> Well it's just an upper limit and the number of compiler threads that are actually created should be
>>>> controlled by -XX:+UseDynamicNumberOfCompilerThreads.
>>> I know, but it looks like a complicated computation for a simple task which is difficult to maintain if the other code changes.
>>> As you have written, it can happen that the threads really get started and I don't see any benefit of starting so many threads that most of them can never generate a nmethod because it simply wouldn't fit.
>>> Anyway, your change seems to fix the issue and if other reviewers like it this way, ok.
>>
>> Yes I just think that since the available space in the code cache is a dynamic property, it should
>> also be used in a dynamic way to bound the number of compiler threads. I.e, ReservedCodeCacheSize
>> should serve as an upper bound for CICompilerCound and the actual available space should be part of
>> the UseDynamicNumberOfCompilerThreads heuristic.
>>
>>>> I think the heuristic should be improved to
>>>> consider the available space in the code cache as well (not only the available memory). Since the
>>>> available space in the code cache depends on many factors, I don't think a constant is feasible. I
>>>> would prefer to file a RFE for that.
>>> That sounds like a good idea, too.
>>
>> I've filed JDK-8213086 [1]. Feel free to take it, I probably won't have time to work on it soon.
>>
>>>> While looking at the computation again, I've noticed that JDK-8209594 increased the buffer size.
>>>> I've updated C2Compiler::initial_code_buffer_size() accordingly:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8177899/webrev.02/
>>> Thanks for updating. Looks correct. I think this function could be used in compile.cpp, now to avoid code duplication.
>>
>> Right, I've used the corresponding function both in c1_Compiler.cpp and c2compiler.cpp:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8177899/webrev.03/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tobias
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213086
>>