RFR(XL): 8185640: Thread-local handshakes

Mon Oct 23 15:40:44 UTC 2017

Hi Coleen and Robbin,

I'm ok with putting it into a separate RFE. I understand that there are more fun activities than rebasing this XL change for a long time :-)
So you don't need to delay it. It's acceptable for me.

Thanks, Coleen, for sharing your proposal. I appreciate it.

Best regards,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Robbin Ehn [mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com] 
Sent: Montag, 23. Oktober 2017 17:26
To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; hotspot-dev developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: RFR(XL): 8185640: Thread-local handshakes

Hi Martin,

On 2017-10-18 16:05, Doerr, Martin wrote:
> Hi Robbin,
> 
> thanks for the quick reply and for doing additional benchmarks.
> Please note that t->does_dispatch() was just a first idea, but doesn't really fit for the purpose because it's false for conditional branch bytecodes for example. I just didn't find an appropriate quick check in the existing code.
> I guess you will notice a performance impact when benchmarking with -Xint. (I don't know if Oracle usually runs startup performance benchmarks.)

Yes, we are seeing a performance regression, 2.5%-6% depending on benchmark.
We are committed to fix this, but it might come as separate RFE/bug depending on 
the JEP's timeline.

(If the fix, very unlikely, would not be done before next release, we would 
change the default to off)

I hope this is an acceptable path?

Thanks, Robbin

> 
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbin Ehn [mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 15:58
> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; hotspot-dev developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: RFR(XL): 8185640: Thread-local handshakes
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 2017-10-18 12:11, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>> Hi Robbin,
>>
>> so you would like to push your version first (as it does not break other platforms) and then help us to push non-Oracle platform implementations which change shared code again?
>> I'd be fine with that, too.
> 
> Yes, great!
> 
>>
>> While thinking a little longer about the interpreter implementation, a new idea came into my mind.
>> I think we could significantly reduce impact on interpreter code size and performance by using safepoint polls only in a subset of bytecodes. E.g., we could use only bytecodes which perform any kind of jump by implementing something like
>> if (SafepointMechanism::uses_thread_local_poll() && t->does_dispatch()) generate_safepoint_poll();
>> in TemplateInterpreterGenerator::generate_and_dispatch.
> 
> We have not seen any performance regression in simple benchmark with this.
> I will do a better benchmark and compare what difference it makes.
> 
> Thanks, Robbin
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robbin Ehn [mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 11:07
>> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; hotspot-dev developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>> Subject: Re: RFR(XL): 8185640: Thread-local handshakes
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this.
>>
>> On 2017-10-17 19:58, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>>> Hi Robbin,
>>>
>>> my first impression is very good. Thanks for providing the webrev.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>>>
>>> I only don't like that "poll_page_val | poll_bit()" is used in shared code. I'd prefer to use either one or the other mechanism.
>>> Would it be ok to move the decision between what to use to platform code?
>>> (Some platforms could still use both if this is beneficial.)
>>>
>>> E.g. on PPC64, we'd like to use conditional trap instructions with special bit patterns if UseSIGTRAP is on. Would be excellent if we could implement set functions for _poll_armed_value and _poll_disarmed_value in platform code. poll_bit() also fits better into platform code in my opinion.
>>
>> I see no issue with this.
>> Maybe SafepointMechanism::local_poll_armed should be possibly platform specific.
>> Can we do this incremental when adding the platform support for PPC64?
>>
>> Thanks, Robbin
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: hotspot-dev [mailto:hotspot-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Robbin Ehn
>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2017 15:38
>>> To: hotspot-dev developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>>> Subject: RFR(XL): 8185640: Thread-local handshakes
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Starting the review of the code while JEP work is still not completed.
>>>
>>> JEP: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185640
>>>
>>> This JEP introduces a way to execute a callback on threads without performing a global VM safepoint. It makes it both possible and cheap to stop individual threads and not
>>> just all threads or none.
>>>
>>> Entire changeset:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8185640/v0/flat/
>>>
>>> Divided into 3-parts,
>>> SafepointMechanism abstraction:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8185640/v0/SafepointMechanism-0/
>>> Consolidating polling page allocation:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8185640/v0/PollingPage-1/
>>> Handshakes:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8185640/v0/Handshakes-2/
>>>
>>> A handshake operation is a callback that is executed for each JavaThread while that thread is in a safepoint safe state. The callback is executed either by the thread
>>> itself or by the VM thread while keeping the thread in a blocked state. The big difference between safepointing and handshaking is that the per thread operation will be
>>> performed on all threads as soon as possible and they will continue to execute as soon as it’s own operation is completed. If a JavaThread is known to be running, then a
>>> handshake can be performed with that single JavaThread as well.
>>>
>>> The current safepointing scheme is modified to perform an indirection through a per-thread pointer which will allow a single thread's execution to be forced to trap on the
>>> guard page. In order to force a thread to yield the VM updates the per-thread pointer for the corresponding thread to point to the guarded page.
>>>
>>> Example of potential use-cases:
>>> -Biased lock revocation
>>> -External requests for stack traces
>>> -Deoptimization
>>> -Async exception delivery
>>> -External suspension
>>> -Eliding memory barriers
>>>
>>> All of these will benefit the VM moving towards becoming more low-latency friendly by reducing the number of global safepoints.
>>> Platforms that do not yet implement the per JavaThread poll, a fallback to normal safepoint is in place. HandshakeOneThread will then be a normal safepoint. The supported
>>> platforms are Linux x64 and Solaris SPARC.
>>>
>>> Tested heavily with various test suits and comes with a few new tests.
>>>
>>> Performance testing using standardized benchmark show no signification changes, the latest number was -0.7% on Linux x64 and +1.5% Solaris SPARC (not statistically
>>> ensured). A minor regression for the load vs load load on x64 is expected and a slight increase on SPARC due to the cost of ‘materializing’ the page vs load load.
>>> The time to trigger a safepoint was measured on a large machine to not be an issue. The looping over threads and arming the polling page will benefit from the work on
>>> JavaThread life-cycle (8167108 - SMR and JavaThread Lifecycle: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-October/024773.html) which puts all
>>> JavaThreads in an array instead of a linked list.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Robbin
>>>