RFR (S) 8213587 - Speed up CDS dump time by using resizable hashtables
Ioi Lam
ioi.lam at oracle.com
Sun Nov 18 02:48:59 UTC 2018
On 11/17/18 1:54 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Hi Ioi,
>
> This looks good. Glad to see the change that utilizes the existing
> BasicHashtable. Thanks Coleen for the suggestion!
>
> To avoid changing the existing assumptions about BasicHashtable and
> Hashtable, how about adding a destructor to the new KVHashtable
> instead of BasicHashtable? Just did a quick test, which seems to work
> properly.
>
Hi Jiangli,
Thanks for the review.
Not freeing the entries when a BasicHashtable is destructed is a bug.
None of the existing BasicHashtables (and subclasses thereof) are ever
destructed, so I don't think my code would impact them. Also, if any
code depends on the entries not freed even if the table is destructed,
that's clearly a bug in that code, and it should be fixed.
If I don't add the destructor to BasicHashtable, the next person who
wants to allocate/free BasicHashtables will run in to the same issue.
Thanks
- Ioi
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangli
>
>
> On 11/16/18 7:55 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>> Hi Coleen,
>>
>> I deleted the default value for MEMFLAGS as you suggested. For my
>> instantiated templates, I still use mtInternal, though, since I can't
>> find anything better for using at CDS dump time.
>>
>> Also, Jiangli noted that there's a memory leak, because I allocate
>> and free the KVHashtable dynamically. So I added a destructor to
>> BasicHashtable to free the buckets and the block-allocated entries.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8213587-resize-cds-hashtables.v03/
>>
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8213587-resize-cds-hashtables.v03-delta/
>>
>>
>> This comment around Hashtable::allocate_new_entry() is wrong now --
>> "The allocator in blocks is preferable but doesn't have free
>> semantics". Maybe I should change it to this?
>>
>> "The block allocator in BasicHashtable has less fragmentation, but
>> the memory is not freed until the whole table is freed. Use
>> allocate_new_entry() if you want to immediately free the memory used
>> by each entry".
>>
>> I am rerunning hs-tiers{1,2,3,4} to catch any issues. I also tested
>> the solaris/x64 build since it seems to break every time you do
>> something with templates :-(
>>
>> Thanks!
>> - Ioi
>>
>> On 11/16/18 1:36 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ioi, I really like this new wrapper on the old hashtable to not
>>> have to write the boilerplate code!
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8213587-resize-cds-hashtables.v02/src/hotspot/share/utilities/hashtable.hpp.udiff.html
>>>
>>>
>>> + MEMFLAGS F = mtInternal,
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you should require the mt type though and not make it a
>>> default parameter. mtInternal is not very useful to finding memory
>>> leaks.
>>>
>>> Apart from this (which I don't need to see another version), your
>>> change looks good and nice to get good performance benefits from this.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>> On 11/15/18 12:31 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>>> Coleen pointed out to me off-line that the good old (and ugly)
>>>> BasicHashtable already supports resizing. I think that might be a
>>>> better starting point for this RFE:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8213587-resize-cds-hashtables.v02/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a new template class called "KVHashtable" (copying the
>>>> style from ResourceHashtable). That way, you can instantiate
>>>> different (Key -> Value) mappings without writing tons of
>>>> boilerplate code. The performance is similar to my previous
>>>> version, and the code is much cleaner.
>>>>
>>>> I also renamed the RFE title, as well as the subject line of this
>>>> RFR e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> - Ioi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/14/18 5:14 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ioi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/18 9:09 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/18 4:05 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Ioi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The change looks reasonable to me in general. It would be
>>>>>>> helpful to see the performance difference with the expendable
>>>>>>> table. Do you have any data when large number of classes are
>>>>>>> loaded (>20000)? How much saving does it provide?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jiangli, thanks for the review. For dumping 30292 classes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEFORE: 93.971 sec
>>>>>> AFTER: 34.761 sec
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the data! That's about 2.6x improvement with large set
>>>>> of classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jiangli
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> - Ioi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jiangli
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/8/18 10:35 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213587
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8213587-configurable-resource-hash.v01/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TL;DR: -- add a subclass to ResourceHashtable to allow the
>>>>>>>> table size to be
>>>>>>>> dynamically specified when the table is constructed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *** C++ template guru alert ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know much about C++ templates, so my attempt on doing
>>>>>>>> this may be
>>>>>>>> ill-advised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I *think* that with my patch, the performance of existing code,
>>>>>>>> which uses
>>>>>>>> a statically-defined SIZE, should not be affected, as the C++
>>>>>>>> compiler
>>>>>>>> should be able to constant-propagate and reduce the new code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ALWAYSINLINE unsigned size() const {
>>>>>>>> if (SIZE != CONFIGURABLE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>> return SIZE;
>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>> return _configured_table_size;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ALWAYSINLINE Node** get_table() const {
>>>>>>>> if (SIZE != CONFIGURABLE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>> return (Node**)(&_static_table[0]);
>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>> return _configured_table;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Node** lookup_node(unsigned hash, K const& key) {
>>>>>>>> unsigned index = hash % size(); <-----
>>>>>>>> Node** table = get_table();
>>>>>>>> Node** ptr = &table[index]; <-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> back to the old code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Node** lookup_node(unsigned hash, K const& key) {
>>>>>>>> unsigned index = hash % SIZE; <-----
>>>>>>>> Node** ptr = &_table[index]; <-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If anyone has a better way of doing this, I'd love to hear it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> - Ioi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list