RFR(S): 7189971: Implement CMSWaitDuration for non-incremental mode of CMS
John Cuthbertson
john.cuthbertson at oracle.com
Thu Jan 10 19:46:13 UTC 2013
Hi Michal,
Many apologies for the delay in generating a new webrev for this change
but here is the new one: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~johnc/7189971/webrev.1/
Can you verify the webrev to make sure that changes have been applied
correctly? Looking at the new webrev it seems that the setting of the
CMS has been moved back above the return out of the loop. Was this
intentional?
I've done a couple of sanity tests with GCOld with CMSWaitDuration=0 and
CMSWaitDuration=1500 with CMS.
Regards,
JohnC
On 12/12/2012 4:35 AM, Michal Frajt wrote:
> All,
>
> Find the attached patch. It implements proposed recommendations and requested changes. Please mind that the CMSWaitDuration set to -1 (never wait) requires new parameter CMSCheckInterval (develop only, 1000 milliseconds default - constant). The parameter defines the next CMS cycle start check interval in the case there are no desynchronization (notifications) events on the CGC_lock.
>
> Tested with the Solaris/amd64 build
>
> CMS
> + CMSWaitDuration>0 OK
> + CMSWaitDuration=0 OK
> + CMSWaitDuration<0 OK
>
> iCMS
> + CMSWaitDuration>0 OK
> + CMSWaitDuration=0 OK
> + CMSWaitDuration<0 OK
>
> Regards,
> Michal
>
>
> Od: hotspot-gc-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> Komu: hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Kopie:
> Datum: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:48:48 +0100
> Předmet: Re: RFR(S): 7189971: Implement CMSWaitDuration for non-incremental mode of CMS
>
>> Hi John/Jon/Ramki,
>>
>> All proposed recommendations and requested changes have been implemented. We are going to test it on Monday. You will get the new tested patch soon.
>>
>> The attached code here just got compiled, no test executed yet, it might contain a bug, but you can quickly review it and send your comments.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michal
>>
>>
>> // Wait until the next synchronous GC, a concurrent full gc request,
>> // or a timeout, whichever is earlier.
>> void ConcurrentMarkSweepThread::wait_on_cms_lock_for_scavenge(long t_millis) {
>> // Wait time in millis or 0 value representing infinite wait for a scavenge
>> assert(t_millis >= 0, "Wait time for scavenge should be 0 or positive");
>>
>> GenCollectedHeap* gch = GenCollectedHeap::heap();
>> double start_time_secs = os::elapsedTime();
>> double end_time_secs = start_time_secs + (t_millis / ((double) MILLIUNITS));
>>
>> // Total collections count before waiting loop
>> unsigned int before_count;
>> {
>> MutexLockerEx hl(Heap_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>> before_count = gch->total_collections();
>> }
>>
>> unsigned int loop_count = 0;
>>
>> while(!_should_terminate) {
>> double now_time = os::elapsedTime();
>> long wait_time_millis;
>>
>> if(t_millis != 0) {
>> // New wait limit
>> wait_time_millis = (long) ((end_time_secs - now_time) * MILLIUNITS);
>> if(wait_time_millis <= 0) {
>> // Wait time is over
>> break;
>> }
>> } else {
>> // No wait limit, wait if necessary forever
>> wait_time_millis = 0;
>> }
>>
>> // Wait until the next event or the remaining timeout
>> {
>> MutexLockerEx x(CGC_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>
>> set_CMS_flag(CMS_cms_wants_token); // to provoke notifies
>> if (_should_terminate || _collector->_full_gc_requested) {
>> return;
>> }
>> assert(t_millis == 0 || wait_time_millis > 0, "Sanity");
>> CGC_lock->wait(Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag, wait_time_millis);
>> clear_CMS_flag(CMS_cms_wants_token);
>> assert(!CMS_flag_is_set(CMS_cms_has_token | CMS_cms_wants_token),
>> "Should not be set");
>> }
>>
>> // Extra wait time check before entering the heap lock to get the collection count
>> if(t_millis != 0 && os::elapsedTime() >= end_time_secs) {
>> // Wait time is over
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> // Total collections count after the event
>> unsigned int after_count;
>> {
>> MutexLockerEx hl(Heap_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>> after_count = gch->total_collections();
>> }
>>
>> if(before_count != after_count) {
>> // There was a collection - success
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> // Too many loops warning
>> if(++loop_count == 0) {
>> warning("wait_on_cms_lock_for_scavenge() has looped %d times", loop_count - 1);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> void ConcurrentMarkSweepThread::sleepBeforeNextCycle() {
>> while (!_should_terminate) {
>> if (CMSIncrementalMode) {
>> icms_wait();
>> if(CMSWaitDuration >= 0) {
>> // Wait until the next synchronous GC, a concurrent full gc
>> // request or a timeout, whichever is earlier.
>> wait_on_cms_lock_for_scavenge(CMSWaitDuration);
>> }
>> return;
>> } else {
>> if(CMSWaitDuration >= 0) {
>> // Wait until the next synchronous GC, a concurrent full gc
>> // request or a timeout, whichever is earlier.
>> wait_on_cms_lock_for_scavenge(CMSWaitDuration);
>> } else {
>> // Wait until any cms_lock event not to call shouldConcurrentCollect permanently
>> wait_on_cms_lock(0);
>> }
>> }
>> // Check if we should start a CMS collection cycle
>> if (_collector->shouldConcurrentCollect()) {
>> return;
>> }
>> // .. collection criterion not yet met, let's go back
>> // and wait some more
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> Od: hotspot-gc-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
>> Komu: "Jon Masamitsu" jon.masamitsu at oracle.com,"John Cuthbertson" john.cuthbertson at oracle.com
>> Kopie: hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Datum: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:43:29 -0800
>> Předmet: Re: RFR(S): 7189971: Implement CMSWaitDuration for non-incremental mode of CMS
>>
>>> Hi John --
>>>
>>> wrt the changes posted, i see the intent of the code and agree with
>>> it. I have a few minor suggestions on the
>>> details of how it's implemented. My comments are inline below,
>>> interleaved with the code:
>>>
>>> 317 // Wait until the next synchronous GC, a concurrent full gc request,
>>> 318 // or a timeout, whichever is earlier.
>>> 319 void ConcurrentMarkSweepThread::wait_on_cms_lock_for_scavenge(long
>>> t_millis) {
>>> 320 // Wait for any cms_lock event when timeout not specified (0 millis)
>>> 321 if (t_millis == 0) {
>>> 322 wait_on_cms_lock(t_millis);
>>> 323 return;
>>> 324 }
>>>
>>> I'd completely avoid the special case above because it would miss the
>>> part about waiting for a
>>> scavenge, instead dealing with that case in the code in the loop below
>>> directly. The idea
>>> of the "0" value is not to ask that we return immediately, but that we
>>> wait, if necessary
>>> forever, for a scavenge. The "0" really represents the value infinity
>>> in that sense. This would
>>> be in keeping with our use of wait() with a "0" value for timeout at
>>> other places in the JVM as
>>> well, so it's consistent.
>>>
>>> 325
>>> 326 GenCollectedHeap* gch = GenCollectedHeap::heap();
>>> 327 double start_time = os::elapsedTime();
>>> 328 double end_time = start_time + (t_millis / 1000.0);
>>>
>>> Note how, the end_time == start_time for the special case of t_millis
>>> == 0, so we need to treat that
>>> case specially below.
>>>
>>> 329
>>> 330 // Total collections count before waiting loop
>>> 331 unsigned int before_count;
>>> 332 {
>>> 333 MutexLockerEx hl(Heap_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>> 334 before_count = gch->total_collections();
>>> 335 }
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> 336
>>> 337 while (true) {
>>> 338 double now_time = os::elapsedTime();
>>> 339 long wait_time_millis = (long)((end_time - now_time) * 1000.0);
>>> 340
>>> 341 if (wait_time_millis <= 0) {
>>> 342 // Wait time is over
>>> 343 break;
>>> 344 }
>>>
>>> Modify to:
>>> if (t_millis != 0) {
>>> if (wait_time_millis <= 0) {
>>> // Wait time is over
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> } else {
>>> wait_time_millis = 0; // for use in wait() below
>>> }
>>>
>>> 345
>>> 346 // Wait until the next event or the remaining timeout
>>> 347 {
>>> 348 MutexLockerEx x(CGC_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>> 349 if (_should_terminate || _collector->_full_gc_requested) {
>>> 350 return;
>>> 351 }
>>> 352 set_CMS_flag(CMS_cms_wants_token); // to provoke notifies
>>>
>>> insert: assert(t_millis == 0 || wait_time_millis > 0, "Sanity");
>>>
>>> 353 CGC_lock->wait(Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag, wait_time_millis);
>>> 354 clear_CMS_flag(CMS_cms_wants_token);
>>> 355 assert(!CMS_flag_is_set(CMS_cms_has_token | CMS_cms_wants_token),
>>> 356 "Should not be set");
>>> 357 }
>>> 358
>>> 359 // Extra wait time check before entering the heap lock to get
>>> the collection count
>>> 360 if (os::elapsedTime() >= end_time) {
>>> 361 // Wait time is over
>>> 362 break;
>>> 363 }
>>>
>>> Modify above wait time check to make an exception for t_miliis == 0:
>>> // Extra wait time check before checking collection count
>>> if (t_millis != 0 && os::elapsedTime() >= end_time) {
>>> // wait time exceeded
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>>> 364
>>> 365 // Total collections count after the event
>>> 366 unsigned int after_count;
>>> 367 {
>>> 368 MutexLockerEx hl(Heap_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>> 369 after_count = gch->total_collections();
>>> 370 }
>>> 371
>>> 372 if (before_count != after_count) {
>>> 373 // There was a collection - success
>>> 374 break;
>>> 375 }
>>> 376 }
>>> 377 }
>>>
>>> While it is true that we do not have a case where the method is called
>>> with a time of "0", I think we
>>> want that value to be treated correctly as "infinity". For the case
>>> where we do not want a wait at all,
>>> we should use a small positive value, like "1 ms" to signal that
>>> intent, i.e. -XX:CMSWaitDuration=1,
>>> reserving CMSWaitDuration=0 to signal infinity. (We could also do that
>>> by reserving negative values to
>>> signal infinity, but that would make the code in the loop a bit more fiddly.)
>>>
>>> As mentioned in my previous email, I'd like to see this tested with
>>> CMSWaitDuration set to 0, positive and
>>> negative values (if necessary, we can reject negative value settings),
>>> and with ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent.
>>>
>>> Rest looks OK to me, although I am not sure how this behaves with
>>> iCMS, as I have forgotten that part of the
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Finally, in current code (before these changes) there are two callers
>>> of the former wait_for_cms_lock() method,
>>> one here in sleepBeforeNextCycle() and one from the precleaning loop.
>>> I think the right thing has been done
>>> in terms of leaving the latter alone.
>>>
>>> It would be good if this were checked with CMSInitiatingOccupancy set
>>> to 0 (or a small value), CMSWaitDuration set to 0,
>>> -+PromotionFailureALot and checking that (1) it does not deadlock (2)
>>> CMS cycles start very soon after the end of
>>> a scavenge (and not at random times as Michal has observed earlier,
>>> although i am guessing that is difficult to test).
>>> It would be good to repeat the above test with iCMS as well.
>>>
>>> thanks!
>>> -- ramki
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Srinivas Ramakrishna wrote:
>>>> Thanks Jon for the pointer:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/05/12 14:47, Srinivas Ramakrishna wrote:
>>>>>> The high level idea looks correct. I'll look at the details in a bit (seriously this time; sorry it dropped off my plate last time I promised).
>>>>>> Does anyone have a pointer to the related discussion thread on this aias from earlier in the year, by chance, so one could refresh one's
>>>>>> memory of that discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>> subj: CMSWaitDuration unstable behavior
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2012-August/thread.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> also: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2012-August/004880.html
>>>>
>>>> On to it later this afternoon, and TTYL w/review.
>>>> - ramki
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list