Obsoleting JavaCritical

[Vitaly Davidovich]

To not sidetrack this thread with my previous reply:

Maurizio - are you saying java criticals are *already* hindering ZGC and/or
other planned Hotspot improvements? Or that theoretically they could and
you’d like to remove/deprecate them now(ish)?

If it’s the former, perhaps it’s prudent to keep them around until a
compelling case surfaces where they preclude or severely restrict evolution
of the platform? If it’s the former, would be curious what that is but
would also understand the rationale behind wanting to remove it.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 1:26 PM Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 1:13 PM Wojciech Kudla <wkudla.kernel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your input, Vitaly. I'd be interested to find out more about
>> the nature of the HW noise you observed in your benchmarks as our results
>> were very consistent and it was pretty straightforward to pinpoint the
>> culprit as JNI call overhead. Maybe it was just easier for us because we
>> disallow C- and P-state transitions and put a lot of effort to eliminate
>> platform jitter in general. Were you maybe running on a CPU model that
>> doesn't support constant TSC? I would also suggest retrying with LAPIC
>> interrupts suppressed (with: cli/sti) to maybe see if it's the kernel and
>> not the hardware.
>>
> This was on a Broadwell Xeon chipset with constant tsc.  All the typical
> jitter sources were reduced: C/P states disabled in bios, max turbo
> enabled, IRQs steered away, core isolated, etc.  By the way, by noise I
> don’t mean the results themselves were noisy - they were constant run to
> run.  I just meant the delta between normal vs critical JNI entrypoints was
> very minimal - ie “in the noise”, particularly with rdtsc.
>
> I can try to remeasure on newer Intel but see below …
>
>>
>>
>> 100% agree on rdtsc(p) and snippets. There are some narrow usecases were
>> one can get some substantial speed ups with direct access to prefetch or by
>> abusing misprediction to keep icache hot. These scenarios are sadly only
>> available with inline assembly. I know of a few shops that go to the length
>> of forking Graal, etc to achieve that but am quite convinced such
>> capabilities would be welcome and utilized by many more groups if they were
>> easily accessible from java.
>>
> I’m of the firm (and perhaps controversial for some :)) opinion these days
> that Java is simply the wrong platform/tool for low latency cases that
> warrant this level of control.  There’re very strong headwinds even outside
> of JNI costs.  And the “real” problem with JNI, besides transition costs,
> is lack of inlining into the native calls.  So even if JVM transition costs
> are fully eliminated, there’s still an optimization fence due to lost
> inlining (not unlike native code calling native fns via shared libs).
>
> That’s not say that perf regressions are welcomed - nobody likes those :).
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> W.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 5:51 PM Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’d add rdtsc(p) wrapper functions to the list.  These are usually
>>> either inline asm or compiler intrinsic in the JNI entrypoint.  In
>>> addition, any native libs exposed via JNI that have “trivial” functions are
>>> also candidates for faster calling conventions.  There’re sometimes way to
>>> mitigate the call overhead (eg batching) but it’s not always feasible.
>>>
>>> I’ll add that last time I tried to measure the improvement of Java
>>> criticals for clock_gettime (and rdtsc) it looked to be in the noise on the
>>> hardware I was testing on.  It got the point where I had to instrument the
>>> critical and normal JNI entrypoints to confirm the critical was being hit.
>>> The critical calling convention isn’t significantly different *if* basic
>>> primitives (or no args at all) are passed as args.  JNIEnv*, IIRC, is
>>> loaded from a register so that’s minor.  jclass (for static calls, which is
>>> what’s relevant here) should be a compiled constant.  Critical call still
>>> has a GCLocker check.  So I’m not actually sure what the significant
>>> difference is for “lightweight” (ie few primitive or no args, primitive
>>> return types) calls.
>>>
>>> In general, I do think it’d be nice if there was a faster native call
>>> sequence, even if it comes with a caveat emptor and/or special requirements
>>> on the callee (not unlike the requirements for criticals).  I think
>>> Vladimir Ivanov was working on “snippets” that allowed dynamic construction
>>> of a native call, possibly including assembly.  Not sure where that
>>> exploration is these days, but that would be a welcome capability.
>>>
>>> My $.02.  Happy 4th of July for those celebrating!
>>>
>>> Vitaly
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:04 PM Maurizio Cimadamore <
>>> maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> while I'm not an expert with some of the IO calls you mention (some of
>>>> my colleagues are more knowledgeable in this area, so I'm sure they will
>>>> have more info), my general sense is that, as with getrusage, if there is a
>>>> system call involved, you already pay a hefty price for the user to kernel
>>>> transition. On my machine this seem to cost around 200ns. In these cases,
>>>> using JNI critical to shave off a dozen of nanoseconds (at best!) seems
>>>> just not worth it.
>>>>
>>>> So, of the functions in your list, the ones in which I *believe*
>>>> dropping transitions would have the most effect are (if we exclude getpid,
>>>> for which another approach is possible) clock_gettime and getcpu, I
>>>> believe, as they might use vdso [1], which typically brings the performance
>>>> of these call closer to calls to shared lib functions.
>>>>
>>>> If you have examples e.g. where performance of recvmsg (or related
>>>> calls) varies significantly between base JNI and critical JNI, please send
>>>> them our way; I'm sure some of my colleagues would be intersted to take a
>>>> look.
>>>>
>>>> Popping back a couple of levels, I think it would be helpful to also
>>>> define what's an acceptable regression in this context. Of course, in an
>>>> ideal world,  we'd like to see no performance regression at all. But JNI
>>>> critical is an unsupported interface, which might misbehave with modern
>>>> garbage collectors (e.g. ZGC) and that requires quite a bit of internal
>>>> complexity which might, in the medium/long run, hinder the evolution of the
>>>> Java platform (all these things have _some_ cost, even if the cost is not
>>>> directly material to developers). In this vein, I think calls like
>>>> clock_gettime tend to be more problematic: as they complete very quickly,
>>>> you see the cost of transitions a lot more. In other cases, where syscalls
>>>> are involved, the cost associated to transitions are more likely to be "in
>>>> the noise". Of course if we look at absolute numbers, dropping transitions
>>>> would always yield "faster" code; but at the same time, going from 250ns to
>>>> 245ns is very unlikely to result in visible performance difference when
>>>> considering an application as a whole, so I think it's critical here to
>>>> decide _which_ use cases to prioritize.
>>>>
>>>> I think a good outcome of this discussion would be if we could come to
>>>> some shared understanding of which native calls are truly problematic (e.g.
>>>> clock_gettime-like), and then for the JDK to provide better (and more
>>>> maintainable) alternatives for those (which might even be faster than using
>>>> critical JNI).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Maurizio
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/vdso.7.html
>>>> On 04/07/2022 12:23, Wojciech Kudla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Maurizio,
>>>>
>>>> I raised this case mainly about clock_gettime and recvmsg/sendmsg, I
>>>> think we're focusing on the wrong things here. Feel free to drop the two
>>>> syscalls from the discussion entirely, but the main usecases I have been
>>>> presenting throughout this thread definitely stand.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 10:54 AM Maurizio Cimadamore <
>>>> maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Wojtek,
>>>>> thanks for sharing this list, I think this is a good starting point to
>>>>> understand more about your use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week I've been looking at "getrusage" (as you mentioned it in an
>>>>> earlier email), and I was surprised to see that the call took a pointer to
>>>>> a (fairly big) struct which then needed to be initialized with some
>>>>> thread-local state:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/getrusage.2.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked at the implementation, and it seems to be doing memset on
>>>>> the user-provided struct pointer, plus all the fields assignment.
>>>>> Eyeballing the implementation, this does not seem to me like a "classic"
>>>>> use case where dropping transition would help much. I mean, surely dropping
>>>>> transitions would help shaving some nanoseconds off the call, but it
>>>>> doesn't seem to me that the call would be shortlived enough to make a
>>>>> difference. Do you have some benchmarks on this one? I did some [1] and the
>>>>> call overhead seemed to come up at 260ns/op - w/o transition you might
>>>>> perhaps be able to get to 250ns, but that's in the noise?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for getpid, note that you can do (since Java 9):
>>>>>
>>>>> ProcessHandle.current().pid();
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the impl caches the result, so it shouldn't even make the
>>>>> native call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maurizio
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] -
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/GetrusageTest.java
>>>>> On 02/07/2022 07:42, Wojciech Kudla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Maurizio,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for staying on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Could you please provide a rough list of the native calls you make
>>>>> where you believe critical JNI is having a real impact in the performance
>>>>> of your application?
>>>>>
>>>>> From the top of my head:
>>>>> clock_gettime
>>>>> recvmsg
>>>>> recvmmsg
>>>>> sendmsg
>>>>> sendmmsg
>>>>> select
>>>>> getpid
>>>>> getcpu
>>>>> getrusage
>>>>>
>>>>> > Also, could you please tell us whether any of these calls need to
>>>>> interact with Java arrays?
>>>>> No arrays or objects of any type involved. Everything happens by the
>>>>> means of passing raw pointers as longs and using other primitive types as
>>>>> function arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> > In other words, do you use critical JNI to remove the cost
>>>>> associated with thread transitions, or are you also taking advantage of
>>>>> accessing on-heap memory _directly_ from native code?
>>>>> Criticial JNI natives are used solely to remove the cost of
>>>>> transitions. We don't get anywhere near java heap in native code.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general I think it makes a lot of sense for Java as a
>>>>> language/platform to have some guards around unsafe code, but on the other
>>>>> hand the popularity of libraries employing Unsafe and their success in more
>>>>> performance-oriented corners of software engineering is a clear indicator
>>>>> there is a need for the JVM to provide access to more low-level primitives
>>>>> and mechanisms.
>>>>> I think it's entirely fair to tell developers that all bets are off
>>>>> when they get into some non-idiomatic scenarios but please don't take away
>>>>> a feature that greatly contributed to Java's success.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Wojtek
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:20 PM Maurizio Cimadamore <
>>>>> maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Wojciech,
>>>>>> picking up this thread again. After some internal discussion, we
>>>>>> realize that we don't know enough about your use case. While re-enabling
>>>>>> JNI critical would obviously provide a quick fix, we're afraid that (a)
>>>>>> developers might end up depending on JNI critical when they don't need to
>>>>>> (perhaps also unaware of the consequences of depending on it) and (b) that
>>>>>> there might actually be _better_ (as in: much faster) solutions than using
>>>>>> critical native calls to address at least some of your use cases (that
>>>>>> seemed to be the case with the clock_gettime example you mentioned). Could
>>>>>> you please provide a rough list of the native calls you make where you
>>>>>> believe critical JNI is having a real impact in the performance of your
>>>>>> application? Also, could you please tell us whether any of these calls need
>>>>>> to interact with Java arrays? In other words, do you use critical JNI to
>>>>>> remove the cost associated with thread transitions, or are you also taking
>>>>>> advantage of accessing on-heap memory _directly_ from native code?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Maurizio
>>>>>> On 13/06/2022 21:38, Wojciech Kudla wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your input and apologies for the delayed response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > If the platform included, say, an intrinsified System.nanoRealTime()
>>>>>> method that returned clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME), how much would
>>>>>> that help developers in your unnamed industry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exposing realtime clock with nanosecond granularity in the JDK would
>>>>>> be a great step forward. I should have made it clear that I represent
>>>>>> fintech corner (investment banking to be exact) but the issues my message
>>>>>> touches upon span areas such as HPC, audio processing, gaming, and defense
>>>>>> industry so it's not like we have an isolated case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > In a similar vein, if people are finding it necessary to “replace
>>>>>> parts
>>>>>> of NIO with hand-crafted native code” then it would be interesting to
>>>>>> understand what their requirements are
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the other example I provided with making very short lived
>>>>>> syscalls such as recvmsg/recvmmsg the premise is getting access to hardware
>>>>>> timestamps on the ingress and egress ends as well as enabling batch receive
>>>>>> with a single syscall and otherwise exploiting features unavailable from
>>>>>> the JDK (like access to CMSG interface, scatter/gather, etc).
>>>>>> There are also other examples of calls that we'd love to make often
>>>>>> and at lowest possible cost (ie. getrusage) but I'm not sure if there's a
>>>>>> strong case for some of these ideas, that's why it might be worth looking
>>>>>> into more generic approach for performance sensitive code.
>>>>>> Hope this does better job at explaining where we're coming from than
>>>>>> my previous messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> W
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:31 PM <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2022/6/6 0:24:17 -0700, wkudla.kernel at gmail.com:
>>>>>>> >> Yes for System.nanoTime(), but System.currentTimeMillis() reports
>>>>>>> >> CLOCK_REALTIME.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Unfortunately System.currentTimeMillis() offers only millisecond
>>>>>>> > granularity which is the reason why our industry has to resort to
>>>>>>> > clock_gettime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the platform included, say, an intrinsified System.nanoRealTime()
>>>>>>> method that returned clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME), how much would
>>>>>>> that help developers in your unnamed industry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a similar vein, if people are finding it necessary to “replace
>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>> of NIO with hand-crafted native code” then it would be interesting to
>>>>>>> understand what their requirements are.  Some simple enhancements to
>>>>>>> the NIO API would be much less costly to design and implement than a
>>>>>>> generalized user-level native-call intrinsification mechanism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>> --
> Sent from my phone
>
-- 
Sent from my phone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/panama-dev/attachments/20220704/d34b477b/attachment-0001.htm>