RFR: 8181859: Monitor deflation is not checked in cleanup path
varming at gmail.com
Tue Jun 13 15:11:49 UTC 2017
It might just be me, but I find MT > 0 && (mu * 100) / MP > MT easier to
read than MT > 0 ? (mu * 100) / MP > MT : false. Secondly, you are getting
uncomfortable close to the boundaries of int when you multiply mu by 100
(is it possible to grow the population to 21 million monitors?). A cast to
double or long would eliminate my concern.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Robbin Ehn <robbin.ehn at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi all, please review,
> Today cleanup is only triggered by IC buffers that needs to be finalized.
> This cleanup check is done in every GuaranteedSafepointInterval (default
> If the cleanup check return false there will be no safepoint, so the
> option name, GuaranteedSafepointInterval, is misleading.
> This makes the time between safepoint potentials much longer after the
> compiler stabilize
> and can have a big negative affect on the numbers of monitor, and so
> latency increase.
> This patch adds a check to ObjectSynchronizer if there is potential many
> monitors for deflation and thus triggers a safepoint.
> It also adds a new (in this patch exprimental) option
> which is the percentage of monitors used in the total population.
> The monitor population is today controlled by MonitorBound, the selected
> GC arbitrary safepoints and
> the compiler IC buffer check each GuaranteedSafepointInterval.
> After this patch above is still true, but also
> MonitorUsedDeflationThreshold on GuaranteedSafepointInterval
> greatly affects the monitor population as can bee seen below.
> The default value for MonitorUsedDeflationThreshold give you ~2-3x of
> monitors used under GuaranteedSafepointInterval.
> This turns out to be a very reasonable value for most cases.
> nosql benchmark, MonitorUsedDeflationThreshold 0 (off) vs 90 (vs 20)
> Monitor population 132334 -> 63627 (28448)
> Total time in safepoint 6.52109 -> 5.74264 (5.58456)
> Number of safepoint increase with ~30% (~100%) on default
> GuaranteedSafepointInterval (1000ms)
> Worse cleanup deflation 120 ms -> 35 ms (30ms)
> Throughput same
> SpecJBB2015 linux x64, critical jops +2-10%
> In a special nosql benchmark with very low threshold:
> Worse single threaded ObjectSynchronizer::oops_do goes down from ~15ms
> (avg: ~2.6ms) to ~4ms (avg: ~0.7ms)
> Worse single threaded deflation cleanup goes down from ~40ms (avg:~3.3ms)
> to ~10ms (avg: ~2ms)
> On very large machine, e.g. Sprac M7 the overhead of safepointing is very
> large, could be up to ~40ms.
> The default value for such a big machine have a negative impact,
> specjbb2015 ~ -2%.
> Here I suggest the default value should be 90, which seem to have no
> negative effects on an average Linux x64 server class machine.
> A smaller machine thus lower safepoint overhead should also gain from this
> default value.
> I do not see any conflict with the proposed "JEP Draft: Concurrent Monitor
> Deflation" by Carsten and Roman.
> The same check should in that case start the concurrent deflation.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181859
> Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8181859/webrev/
> JEP: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev