RFR: 8087324: Use semaphores when starting and stopping GC task threads
Stefan Karlsson
stefan.karlsson at oracle.com
Mon Aug 17 07:10:04 UTC 2015
On 2015-08-14 13:27, Stefan Johansson wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 2015-07-02 17:03, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/02/2015 04:48 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-01 18:31, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2015 7:52 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The current implementation to distribute tasks to GC worker
>>>>> threads often cause long latencies (multiple milliseconds) when
>>>>> the threads are started and stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main reason is that the worker threads have to fight over the
>>>>> Monitor lock when they are woken up from the call to
>>>>> Monitor::wait. Another reason is that all worker threads call
>>>>> notify_all when they finish a task and there wakes all all
>>>>> sleeping worker threads, which will yet again force the worker
>>>>> threads to fight over the lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we use semaphores instead, so that the worker
>>>>> threads don't have to fight over a lock when they are woken up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches build upon the following patch which introduces a
>>>>> Semaphore utility class. This patch will sent out for review on
>>>>> the hotspot-dev, since it affects non-GC parts of the code:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087322/webrev.00/
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087322
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first patch that I would like to get reviewed is:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087323/webrev.00/
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087323 - Unify and split
>>>>> the work gang classes
>>>>>
>>>>> It prepares for JDK-8087324, by separating the generic WorkGang
>>>>> implementation from the more elaborate YieldingFlexibleWorkGang
>>>>> (CMS) implementation. By having this part as a separate patch, I
>>>>> hope it will be easier to review JDK-8087324. The patch changes
>>>>> the work gang inheritance from:
>>>>>
>>>>> AbstractWorkGang
>>>>> WorkGang
>>>>> FlexibleWorkGang
>>>>> YieldingFlexibleWorkGang
>>>>>
>>>>> to:
>>>>>
>>>>> AbstractWorkGang
>>>>> WorkGang
>>>>> YieldingFlexibleWorkGang
>>>>>
>>>>> Parts of the FlexibleWorkGang and WorkGang code that is going to
>>>>> be used by both concrete work gang classes, has been moved into
>>>>> AbstractWorkGang. I've duplicated some code in WorkGang and
>>>>> YieldingFlexibleWorkGang, but that code will be removed from
>>>>> WorkGang in the following patch.
> The changes for 8087323 looks good. I agree with Jons comments below
> about removing the function is_Yielding... and the cast in
> YieldingFlexibleGangTask.
Removed.
Thanks,
StefanK
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087323/webrev.00/src/share/vm/gc/cms/yieldingWorkgroup.hpp.frames.html
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be only one definition of
>>>> is_YieldingFlexibleGang_task() now. Is that right? Is that useful?
>>>>
>>>> 131 NOT_PRODUCT(virtual bool is_YieldingFlexibleGang_task() const {
>>>> 132 return true;
>>>> 133 })
>>>
>>> I agree. I don't think we need it anymore.
>>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not a change in your patch but
>>>>
>>>> 86 AbstractWorkGang(const char* name, uint workers, bool are_GC_task_threads, bool are_ConcurrentGC_threads) :
>>>> 87 _name(name),
>>>> 88 _total_workers(workers),
>>>> 89 _active_workers(UseDynamicNumberOfGCThreads ? 1U : workers),
>>>> 90 _are_GC_task_threads(are_GC_task_threads),
>>>> 91 _are_Concurren
>>>>
>>>> _active_workers is always calculated as >= 2 unless _total_workers
>>>> is only 1.
>>>> So line 89 should be
>>>>
>>>> _active_workers(UseDynamicNumberOfGCThreads ? MIN2(2, workers) :
>>>> workers)
>>>>
>>>> Should I file a CR for that? Or do you want to include it.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that what is proposed above is correct. I see that
>>> AdaptiveSizePolicy::calc_active_workers returns 2 as a minimum, but
>>> both ConcurrentMark::calc_parallel_marking_threads and
>>> AdaptiveSizePolicy::calc_active_conc_workers can return 1.
>>>
>>> I also don't think it should be AbstractWorkGang's responsibility to
>>> have the knowledge about the minimum number of worker threads that
>>> are used when UseDynamicNumberOfGCThreads are turned on. Maybe we
>>> should set it to 0, and let the calc_*_active_workers setup the
>>> default value.
>>
>> I think that at one time I had tried to set the default to 0 and
>> something failed. I can see the point though.
>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer to handle any changes, to this part of the code, as
>>> separate RFEs.
>>
>> Fair enough. If I think it's worth doing, I'll file and RFE.
>> Probably something more than just setting
>> it to 2 (maybe picking a default value with the help of
>> AdaptiveSizePolicy).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Have you considered (maybe for a later patch) changing
>>>> YieldingFlexibleWorkGang to
>>>> simply YieldingWorkGang? The "Flexible" attribute of
>>>> YieldingFlexibleWorkGang having
>>>> been moved into AbstractWorkGang.
>>>
>>> I thought about it, but didn't think it was important enough to
>>> warrant that change in this patch. I wouldn't mind if a RFE was
>>> created to change the name.
>>
>> I'll file the RFE if you agree with the point that "Flexible"
>> describes what AbstractWorkGang does now.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087323/webrev.00/src/share/vm/gc/cms/yieldingWorkgroup.cpp.frames.html
>>>>
>>>> Is the cast at 53 necessary? I see it in the original code too.
>>>>
>>>> 50 AbstractGangWorker* YieldingFlexibleWorkGang::allocate_worker(uint which) {
>>>> 51 YieldingFlexibleGangWorker* new_member =
>>>> 52 new YieldingFlexibleGangWorker(this, which);
>>>> 53 return (YieldingFlexibleGangWorker*) new_member;
>>>> 54 }
>>>
>>> Yes, this is unnecessary.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rest looks good.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll do the second patch next.
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>> StefanK
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The second patch I'd like to get reviewed is:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087324/webrev.00/
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087324 - Use semaphores
>>>>> when starting and stopping GC task threads
>>>>>
>>>>> It first simplifies the way we distribute the tasks to the GC
>>>>> worker threads. For example, the coordinator thread dispatches a
>>>>> task to a specific number of workers, and then waits for all work
>>>>> to be completed. There's no risk that multiple tasks will be
>>>>> scheduled simultaneously, so there's no need for the sequences
>>>>> number that is used in the current implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch contains two task dispatch / thread synchronization
>>>>> implementations:
>>>>>
>>>>> The first implementation uses Monitors, similar to what we did
>>>>> before the patch, but with a slightly lower overhead since the
>>>>> code calls notify_all less often. It still suffers from the
>>>>> "thundering heard" problem. When the coordinator thread signals
>>>>> that the worker threads should start, they all wake up from
>>>>> Monitor::wait and they all try to lock the Monitor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second, and the more interesting, implementation uses
>>>>> semaphores. When the worker threads wake up from the semaphore
>>>>> wait, they don't have to serialize the execution by taking a lock.
>>>>> This greatly decreases the time it takes to start and stop the
>>>>> worker threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The semaphore implementation is used on all platforms where the
>>>>> Semaphore class has been implemented in JDK-8087322. So, on some
>>>>> OS:es the code will revert to the Monitor-based solution until a
>>>>> Semaphore class has been implemented for that OS. So, porters
>>>>> might want to consider implementing the Sempahore class.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also a diagnostic vm option
>>>>> (-XX:+/-UseSemaphoreGCThreadsSynchronization) to turn off the
>>>>> Semaphore-based implementation, which can be used to debug this
>>>>> new code. It's mainly targeted towards support and sustaining
>>>>> engineering.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches have been performance tested on Linux, Solaris, OSX,
>>>>> and Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> The effects of the patch can be seen by running benchmarks with
>>>>> small young gen sizes, which triggers frequent and short GCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, here are runs from the SPECjvm2008 xml.transform
>>>>> benchmark with:
>>>>> -Xmx1g -Xms1g -Xmn64m -XX:+PrintGC -XX:+UseG1GC -jar
>>>>> SPECjvm2008.jar -ikv xml.transform -it 30 -wt 30
>>>>>
>>>>> I got the following GC times:
>>>>>
>>>>> Average Median 99.9 percentile Max
>>>>> Baseline: 8.76ms 8.44 ms 25.9 ms 34.7 ms
>>>>> Monitor: 6.17 ms 5.88 ms 26.0 ms 49.1 ms
>>>>> Semaphore: 3.43 ms 3.26 ms 13.4 ms 33.4 ms
>>>>>
>>>>> If I run an empty GC task 10 times per GC, by running the
>>>>> following code:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087324/timedTask/
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the following numbers to complete the empty GC tasks:
>>>>>
>>>>> Average Median 99.9 percentile Max
>>>>> Baseline: 1.43 ms 0.92 ms 3.43 ms 9.30ms
>>>>> Monitor: 0.75ms 0.72 ms 1.74 ms 2.78ms
>>>>> Semaphore: 0.07 ms 0.07 ms 0.17 ms 0.26 ms
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The code has been tested with JPRT and our nightly testing suites.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've created a unit test to run a small test with both the
>>>>> semaphore implementation and the monitor implementation:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8087324/workgangTest/
>>>>>
>>>>> But since we currently don't have code to shutdown worker threads
>>>>> after they have been started, I don't want to push this test (or
>>>>> clean it up) until we have that in place. I created this bug for that:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087340
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> StefanK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20150817/01417efd/attachment.htm>
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list