RFR[S] 8210289 ArchivedKlassSubGraphInfoRecord is incomplete

Ioi Lam ioi.lam at oracle.com
Wed Sep 5 22:56:02 UTC 2018 

I updated the patch:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8210289-subgraph-record-incomplete.v03/

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8210289-subgraph-record-incomplete.v03-delta/

1. No need to walk String objects during subgraph recording.

2. Print put statistics:

=========================

jdk/internal/module/ArchivedModuleGraph: walked 1871 objs, archived 1871 
new objs, recorded 28 classes
java/util/ImmutableCollections$ListN: walked 2 objs, archived 0 new 
objs, recorded 0 classes
java/util/ImmutableCollections$MapN: walked 2 objs, archived 0 new objs, 
recorded 0 classes
java/util/ImmutableCollections$SetN: walked 2 objs, archived 0 new objs, 
recorded 0 classes
java/lang/Integer$IntegerCache: walked 257 objs, archived 256 new objs, 
recorded 2 classes
java/lang/module/Configuration: walked 7 objs, archived 0 new objs, 
recorded 3 classes

Performed subgraph records = 6 times
Walked 2141 objects
Archived 2127 objects
Recorded 33 klasses

========

So, at least for now, we don't need to worry about the performance of 
WalkOopAndArchiveClosure.

Once I get some statistics of Lambda archiving, I'll post them as well.

So, with the bug fix, the subgraph recording should be both correct and 
faster than before (no more String walking).

Thanks
- Ioi


On 9/3/2018 1:02 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
> Hi Jiangli,
>
> I think your suggestion of combining of combining RecordKlassesClosure 
> and WalkOopAndArchiveClosure is a good idea. I have updated the webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8210289-subgraph-record-incomplete.v02/ 
>
>
> This also supersedes my other patch for JDK-8210295 Refactor 
> HeapShared::archive_reachable_objects_from_static_field
>
> More comments below on future optimizations.
>
>
> On 9/2/18 6:07 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Hi Ioi,
>>
>> On 9/1/18 8:58 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>> Hi Jiangli,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking at the optimization of this problem. I think your 
>>> algorithm will run into problems if (a) there is a cycle, and (b) 
>>> two sub-graphs point to different members in the cycle.
>>
>> I think such issue can be solved by tracking the original K (in the 
>> K-list, short for the class-initialization-list) for each archived 
>> object. If an encountered object is already archived (within the 
>> current sub-graph) and is associated with K1 within the current 
>> K-list (must be in this case). We can update the sub-K-list between 
>> K1 and the K associated with the referencing object of the current 
>> object, so their level are the same. We can also add a flag to the 
>> K-list elements to tag each K within the cycle. It may not be what we 
>> need to do currently.
>>
>> Can you please describe the specific class that you ran into with the 
>> bug in your sub-graph?
>
> I found the bug by code examination. It's also during this time that I 
> realized that it's not a simple problem to optimize, because of cycles 
> in the graph. There's been tons of established research in this area 
> (as in "Tarjan's algorithm is one of Donald Knuth's favorite 
> implementations"),  so I don't think we should reinvent the wheel. For 
> future optimization, let's just apply an existing algorithm.
>
>>>
>>> Maybe someone familiar with graph theory can suggest a solution?
>>>
>>> My current thinking is to first find all the cycles in the archived 
>>> heap. The reachability of every member in the cycle is the same, so 
>>> we can collapse each cycle into a single node. After that we have a 
>>> DAG. Then, instead of encoding the class initialization order as 
>>> multiple lists, we can encode it as a DAG to save space.
>>>
>>> See 
>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/261573/best-algorithm-for-detecting-cycles-in-a-directed-graph
>>>
>>> In any case, I think this is a sufficiently difficult problem, so we 
>>> should separate the dumping of the sub-graphs (the first part of 
>>> HeapShared::archive_module_graph_objects() in my patch) and the 
>>> computation of the initialization order 
>>> (HeapShared::record_subgraph_klasses()).
>> Our current K-lists are quite small. If the number of sub-graphs 
>> grows in the future and there are many duplicates in the K-lists, we 
>> can explore using a single K-list, with each sub-graph-info recording 
>> the [start-index, end-index] pairs of the sub-K-lists.
>>
>> To avoid any confusion to others, I want to point out that the order 
>> of the elements in the K-list is not the initialization order of the 
>> classes that happens at dump time.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I wanted to avoid using the word "list" -- I 
> think the most space efficient representation will be a DAG instead of 
> a list -- I should have used "set" instead.
>
> Thanks again for spending time on this topic.
>
> - Ioi
>> The order of the K-list elements is determined by how we walk the 
>> graph. It works for our purpose because we are not doing 
>> general-purpose object graph archiving (at least currently), and all 
>> classes in the targeted sub-graph for archiving must not have any 
>> dependencies on runtime context. When we add more sub-graphs to the 
>> archive in the future, we can examine our existing assumptions and 
>> lift limitations case by case with enhancements.
>>>
>>> Also, I think we should defer the optimization of 
>>> record_subgraph_klasses in a future RFE. That way, we can have 
>>> correctness now, and performance later when we actually need it. 
>>> (The current implementation of record_subgraph_klasses() has not 
>>> caused any perceivable delay for the current set of objects that we 
>>> are archiving).
>> We probably don't need to do what I described in the above for now. 
>> I've looked at your changes, I think we can choose a middle-ground 
>> approach that's more efficient than your current change, but could 
>> still be O(N*M) in the worst case (N is the number of nodes, M is the 
>> number of sub-graphs). It also avoid duplicating the logic between 
>> the archiving_walk closure and the new RecordKlassesClosure.
>>
>> In the middle-ground approach,  WalkOopAndArchiveClosure can take a 
>> new boolean flag, 'record_klass_only'. We can use a separate table to 
>> track the objects we have seen in the current sub-graph as you are 
>> doing in the webrev. If the there is an existing archived copy of the 
>> current object, we check the other table to determine if it's already 
>> in the current sub-graph. If yes, no additional work is needed. If 
>> no, recursively enter the closure but do 'record_klass_only'.
>>
>>       oop archived = MetaspaceShared::find_archived_heap_object(obj);
>>       if (archived != NULL) {
>>         if (has_seen_in_the_current_graph) {
>>             // no work
>>         } else {
>>             // walk the object but record klass only
>>         }
>>         return;
>>       }
>>
>> With that, we can avoid duplicating the logic in RecordKlassesClosure 
>> and also avoid walking the sub-graph objects twice in most cases. 
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jiangli
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> - Ioi
>>>
>>> On 9/1/18 7:55 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 1, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Jiangli Zhou <jiangli.zhou at oracle.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ioi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for finding the bug. To address the incomplete class list 
>>>>> issue, the original algorithm can be augmented while remaining as 
>>>>> an O(N) solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> As each node (object) in an archived subgraph is a root of a 
>>>>> sub-subgraph, the class-initialization-list associated with a 
>>>>> specific node (within an existing archived sub-graph) is also a 
>>>>> sub-list of the enclosing sub-graph's class-initialization-list. 
>>>>> For example,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sub-graph1:
>>>>>
>>>>>              O1(k1)
>>>>>            /         \
>>>>>      O2(k2)       O5(k5)
>>>>>      /       \
>>>>> O3(k3)   O4(k4)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Klass-init-list: K1, K2, K3, K4, K5
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sub-graph2:
>>>>>
>>>>>      O2(k2)
>>>>>      /       \
>>>>> O3(k3)   O4(k4)
>>>>>
>>>>> Klass-init-list: K2, K3, K4
>>>>>
>>>>> During the sub-graph walking and archiving process for sub-graph2, 
>>>>> if O2 has been previously archived in another sub-graph, we can 
>>>>> find the other sub-graph's class list and take the sub-list 
>>>>> starting from the klass (k2), without re-walking each nodes again. 
>>>>> To do that, we only need to walk the existing recorded 
>>>>> class-initialization-list. If K2 is found in any of the existing 
>>>>> list, we can take the sub-list starting from K2 and append the 
>>>>> list to the current one.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the approach, K5 would also be included if O5 is walked after 
>>>>> O2 in sub-graph1. However, O5 is not part of O2's sub-graph. So 
>>>>> that would introduce overhead at runtime. To avoid such problem, 
>>>>> we can remember the sub-graph level (which is already built as 
>>>>> part of the existing graph walking algorithm) for each K in the 
>>>>> class-initialization-list. The ending indication of the sub-list 
>>>>> would be the first K with the same level as the starting K. So we 
>>>>> would have:
>>>>>
>>>>>     K1(1), K2(2), K3(3), K4(4), K5(2)
>>>>>
>>>>> The K2 level is 2, the sub-list would end before K2 who's level is 2.
>>>> Typo. The second K2 above should be k5:
>>>>
>>>> The K2 level is 2, the sub-list would end before K5, who's level is 2.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jiangli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This part is not currently implemented yet but is not difficult to 
>>>>> add.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jiangli
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/1/18 6:08 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210289
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk12/8210289-subgraph-record-incomplete.v01/ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description
>>>>>> ===========
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found this bug while trying to merge my code for CDS support of 
>>>>>> Lambda
>>>>>> classes (JDK-8198698).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When heapShared.cpp dumps a sub-graph of heap objects, it 
>>>>>> attempts to
>>>>>> record all the classes of all the objects that are referenced by
>>>>>> this sub-graph. However, if one of these objects have already 
>>>>>> been visited
>>>>>> while a previous sub-graph was dumped, then this object's class 
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> recorded in the current sub-graph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At runtime, if the current sub-graph is restored before any other
>>>>>> sub-graphs, we will end up with a live object in the Java heap with
>>>>>> an uninitialized class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I create the sub-graph's klasses list after all sub-graphs 
>>>>>> have dumped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For each class that has archived sub-graph(s), I do a heap walk 
>>>>>> to discover
>>>>>> all klasses that are reachable from this archived fields of this 
>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is sub-optimal but suffice for now because we just have a 
>>>>>> very small
>>>>>> number of sub-graphs. The worst case its O(N^2) where N is the 
>>>>>> number of
>>>>>> objects in the archived heap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the future, we might need to implement a more efficient 
>>>>>> algorithm that
>>>>>> walks the heap once and computes all the klasses lists of all the
>>>>>> sub-graphs at the same time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing
>>>>>> =======
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hs-tier[1,2,3]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> - Ioi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list