Thread scheduling imbalance / starvation
Ron Pressler
ron.pressler at oracle.com
Sun Apr 16 14:40:00 UTC 2023
Hi.
What you’re seeing is the result of the virtual thread scheduler not employing time sharing. That is because we have yet to identify workloads, especially those that are best served by virtual threads — namely, servers — that can benefit from it. Once we find such workloads we’ll be able to utilise time sharing.
In your example, the scheduler is able to keep all threads busy with work without blocking on the semaphore by just running some threads.
— Ron
On 16 Apr 2023, at 06:30, Martin Traverso <mtraverso at gmail.com<mailto:mtraverso at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for this feature! We've been eagerly awaiting it in the Trino project and we believe it will help us dramatically simplify many parts of the codebase.
I've been playing around with virtual threads and I've noticed some odd behaviors. Given the following code:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong;
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException
{
int processors = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(processors, true);
List<AtomicLong> counters = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 2 * processors; i++) {
AtomicLong counter = new AtomicLong();
counters.add(counter);
Thread.ofVirtual().start(() -> {
while (true) {
semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
counter.incrementAndGet();
semaphore.release();
}
});
}
Thread.sleep(10_000);
counters.stream()
.map(AtomicLong::get)
.sorted()
.forEach(System.out::println);
}
}
I would expect the counts to be approximately equal, but I'm getting the following result:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2435341
2448274
2466202
2497258
2539030
2572744
2592871
2611658
2651392
2657913
If I change the number of permits for the semaphore to a value smaller than the number of processors, then the results come out as expected. It also works as expected if I change the core loop to make a call to Thread.yield() on the first iteration:
while (true) {
semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
if (counter.incrementAndGet() == 1) {
Thread.yield();
}
semaphore.release();
}
If I place a call to Thread.yield() after the semaphore.release() call, then all the threads make some progress, but the values are still unbalanced:
while (true) {
semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
counter.incrementAndGet();
semaphore.release();
Thread.yield();
}
196257
196257
196258
196260
196260
196260
196261
196261
401737
401740
401744
401757
1644985
1651301
1677466
1683009
1694577
1702710
1710970
1843037
I'm running the following version of the JDK on an Macbook Pro with an M1 Max CPU:
openjdk version "20" 2023-03-21
OpenJDK Runtime Environment Zulu20.28+85-CA (build 20+36)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Zulu20.28+85-CA (build 20+36, mixed mode, sharing)
I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I'm misunderstanding how virtual threads are supposed to work. Any help or clarification would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
- Martin
----
Martin Traverso
Co-founder @ Trino Software Foundation, Co-creator of Presto and Trino (https://trino.io<https://trino.io/>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/loom-dev/attachments/20230416/0a428d35/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the loom-dev
mailing list