Minor GCs consuming an extreme amount of user CPU time
charlie hunt
charlie.hunt at oracle.com
Fri Nov 22 17:42:17 UTC 2024
To add to comments from Thomas, and Paul Hohensee, the GC logs also tend
to show a similar pattern we have seen with CMS at times with
transparent huge pages being set to "always". The symptoms tended to be
occasional high user CPU time along with some sys CPU time.
So another thing that may be worth looking at is setting the OS's
transparent huge pages enabled to "never", and also setting transparent
huge pages defrag to "never".
Alternatively you could also try adding -XX:+UseTransparentHugePages
-XX:+AlwaysPreTouch to set of JVM command line args instead of mucking
with the OS's transparent huge pages configuration.
Charlie
On 11/22/24 2:50 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> not having a lot of experience with CMS, the following could be
> potential issues here:
>
> * this is a burstable VM and it sporadically does not get cpu time.
> Does not seem so for such a large setup for me.
>
> * I am not sure about CMS (it's really been a long time) but I think
> we fixed some issue with large arrays of references not being well
> distributed across threads in Parallel GC (fairly recently), and CMS
> might have the same issue.
>
> Not sure this would show up as all threads being busy for a long time.
>
> Afair there is not much logging in ParNew/CMS either
> (-XX:+PrintGCDetails may help though).
>
> Maybe you know whether this can happen in your application.
>
> A heap histogram may also help during that time (but
>
> * maybe parallel reference processing not enabled. Use
> -XX:+PrintReferenceGC / -XX:+ParallelRefProcEnabled to enable.
>
> Maybe there is still somebody else out there more knowledgable about
> CMS tuning/issues than me.
>
> Hth,
> Thomas
>
> On 19.11.24 17:45, Shane Cox wrote:
>> We are observing a transient behavior where Minor GCs consume an
>> extreme amount of user CPU time. Below is an excerpt from a GC log
>> illustrating this behavior. The first line is representative of
>> typical behavior. Starting with the second line, we observe
>> progressively longer Minor GC pause times and attendant user CPU
>> usage. The last line shows GC behavior returning to normal.
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:31:57.096-0500: 39910.586: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:31:57.096-0500: 39910.587: [ParNew:
>> 2276397K->23593K(2530368K), 0.8039922 secs]
>> 34156897K->32412975K(157005312K), 0.8042477 secs] [Times: user=26.09
>> sys=0.28, real=0.81 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:01.942-0500: 39915.432: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:01.942-0500: 39915.433: [ParNew:
>> 2272873K->22588K(2530368K), 5.9797785 secs]
>> 34662255K->32413062K(157005312K), 5.9800455 secs] [Times: user=195.82
>> sys=0.16, real=5.98 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:08.811-0500: 39922.302: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:08.812-0500: 39922.302: [ParNew:
>> 2271868K->24057K(2530368K), 30.6785198 secs]
>> 34662342K->32417812K(157005312K), 30.6788152 secs] [Times:
>> user=1005.22 sys=0.69, real=30.68 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:40.245-0500: 39953.736: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:32:40.245-0500: 39953.736: [ParNew:
>> 2273337K->41786K(2530368K), 48.4038572 secs]
>> 34667092K->32436550K(157005312K), 48.4041764 secs] [Times:
>> user=1586.51 sys=0.85, real=48.41 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:33:32.236-0500: 40005.726: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:33:32.236-0500: 40005.726: [ParNew:
>> 2291066K->59232K(2530368K), 63.8453443 secs]
>> 34685830K->32454926K(157005312K), 63.8456820 secs] [Times:
>> user=2091.55 sys=1.66, real=63.85 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:34:36.698-0500: 40070.189: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:34:36.698-0500: 40070.189: [ParNew:
>> 2308512K->74883K(2530368K), 78.2503259 secs]
>> 34704206K->32471817K(157005312K), 78.2506265 secs] [Times:
>> user=2565.48 sys=2.21, real=78.25 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:35:55.417-0500: 40148.908: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:35:55.418-0500: 40148.908: [ParNew:
>> 2324163K->102130K(2530368K), 96.4663544 secs]
>> 34721097K->32500405K(157005312K), 96.4668756 secs] [Times:
>> user=3161.99 sys=2.26, real=96.46 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:37:32.503-0500: 40245.993: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:37:32.503-0500: 40245.993: [ParNew:
>> 2351410K->108861K(2530368K), 122.1160632 secs]
>> 34749685K->32508388K(157005312K), 122.1164558 secs] [Times:
>> user=4001.43 sys=3.68, real=122.12 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:39:35.187-0500: 40368.678: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:39:35.188-0500: 40368.678: [ParNew:
>> 2358141K->144672K(2530368K), 161.7914697 secs]
>> 34757668K->32546599K(157005312K), 161.7916831 secs] [Times:
>> user=5302.53 sys=4.43, real=161.79 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:42:17.358-0500: 40530.849: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:42:17.359-0500: 40530.849: [ParNew:
>> 2393952K->200667K(2530368K), 279.7220815 secs]
>> 34795879K->32612580K(157005312K), 279.7224630 secs] [Times:
>> user=9164.75 sys=8.37, real=279.72 secs]
>>
>> 2024-11-19T05:46:57.492-0500: 40810.983: [GC (Allocation Failure)
>> 2024-11-19T05:46:57.492-0500: 40810.983: [ParNew:
>> 2449947K->250145K(2530368K), 0.2150744 secs]
>> 34861860K->32690960K(157005312K), 0.2152389 secs] [Times: user=5.89
>> sys=0.70, real=0.22 secs]
>>
>> The GC log records above do not indicate that an excessive amount of
>> GC-related work is being done. Therefore, I’m guessing that most of
>> the user CPU time is not spent doing productive work. Instead, I’m
>> guessing that the GC threads were just spinning.
>>
>> The CPU usage on the host was 68-69% during this period. That makes
>> sense based on the GC log records. For example, the second to last
>> GC log record reports 9164 CPU seconds and 279 real seconds, which
>> yields a ratio of 32.85. Divide 32.85 by the 48 CPUs and you get a
>> usage of 68.4% … which is the CPU usage that we observed on the host
>> at this time. That being the case, it appears that all of the
>> observed CPU usage was consumed by the GC threads.
>>
>> Any idea what the GC threads might be doing that’s consuming so much
>> CPU usage? Or suggestions for how I might determine what the GC
>> threads are doing?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shane Cox
>>
>> First few lines of GC log containing configuration information:
>>
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (25.212-b04) for linux-amd64 JRE
>> (1.8.0_212-b04), built on Apr 19 2019 23:23:17 by "root" with gcc
>> 7.3.1 20180303 (Red Hat 7.3.1-5)
>>
>> Memory: 4k page, physical 196374708k(167484808k free), swap
>> 4194300k(3010032k free)
>>
>> CommandLine flags: -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=75
>> -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError
>> -XX:InitialHeapSize=161061273600 -XX:MaxHeapSize=161061273600
>> -XX:MaxNewSize=2878971904 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=6
>> -XX:NewSize=2878971904 -XX:OldPLABSize=16 -XX:OldSize=5757943808
>> -XX:+PrintGC -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps -XX:+PrintGCDetails
>> -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+UseParNewGC
>>
>> uname output:
>>
>> Linux 4.18.0-305.45.1.el8_4.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Apr 6 13:48:37 EDT 2022
>> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> lscpu output:
>>
>> Architecture: x86_64
>>
>> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
>>
>> Byte Order: Little Endian
>>
>> CPU(s): 48
>>
>> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-47
>>
>> Thread(s) per core: 2
>>
>> Core(s) per socket: 12
>>
>> Socket(s): 2
>>
>> NUMA node(s): 2
>>
>> Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
>>
>> CPU family: 6
>>
>> Model: 85
>>
>> Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6246 CPU @ 3.30GHz
>>
>> Stepping: 7
>>
>> CPU MHz: 4100.050
>>
>> CPU max MHz: 4200.0000
>>
>> CPU min MHz: 1200.0000
>>
>> BogoMIPS: 6600.00
>>
>> Virtualization: VT-x
>>
>> L1d cache: 32K
>>
>> L1i cache: 32K
>>
>> L2 cache: 1024K
>>
>> L3 cache: 25344K
>>
>> NUMA node0 CPU(s):
>> 0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46
>>
>> NUMA node1 CPU(s):
>> 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41,43,45,47
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This message may contain confidential information and is intended for
>> specific recipients unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you have
>> reason to believe you are not an intended recipient of this message,
>> please delete it and notify the sender. This message may not
>> represent the opinion of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE), its
>> subsidiaries or affiliates, and does not constitute a contract or
>> guarantee. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and the
>> recipient of this message is expected to provide safeguards from
>> viruses and pursue alternate means of communication where privacy or
>> a binding message is desired.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hotspot-gc-use mailing list
>> hotspot-gc-use at openjdk.org
>> https://mail.openjdk.org/mailman/listinfo/hotspot-gc-use
>
> _______________________________________________
> hotspot-gc-use mailing list
> hotspot-gc-use at openjdk.org
> https://mail.openjdk.org/mailman/listinfo/hotspot-gc-use
More information about the hotspot-gc-use
mailing list