RFR: 8087324: Use semaphores when starting and stopping GC task threads
Jon Masamitsu
jon.masamitsu at oracle.com
Wed Jul 1 16:31:25 UTC 2015
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.
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 })
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.
Have you considered (maybe for a later patch) changing
YieldingFlexibleWorkGang to
simply YieldingWorkGang? The "Flexible" attribute of
YieldingFlexibleWorkGang having
been moved into AbstractWorkGang.
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 }
The rest looks good.
I'll do the second patch next.
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/20150701/11f7b7ce/attachment.htm>
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list