RFR: JDK-8306441: Two phase segmented heap dump [v25]

[Kevin Walls]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:33:28 GMT, Yi Yang <yyang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> ### Motivation and proposal
>> Hi, heap dump brings about pauses for application's execution(STW), this is a well-known pain. JDK-8252842 have added parallel support to heapdump in an attempt to alleviate this issue. However, all concurrent threads competitively write heap data to the same file, and more memory is required to maintain the concurrent buffer queue. In experiments, we did not feel a significant performance improvement from that.
>> 
>> The minor-pause solution, which is presented in this PR, is a two-phase segmented heap dump:
>> 
>> - Phase 1(STW): Concurrent threads directly write data to multiple heap files.
>> - Phase 2(Non-STW): Merge multiple heap files into one complete heap dump file. This process can happen outside safepoint.
>> 
>> Now concurrent worker threads are not required to maintain a buffer queue, which would result in more memory overhead, nor do they need to compete for locks. The changes in the overall design are as follows:
>> 
>> ![image](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/assets/5010047/77e4764a-62b5-4336-8b45-fc880ba14c4a)
>> <p align="center">Fig1. Before</p>
>> 
>> ![image](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/assets/5010047/931ab874-64d1-4337-ae32-3066eed809fc)
>> <p align="center">Fig2. After this patch</p>
>> 
>> ### Performance evaluation
>> | memory | numOfThread | CompressionMode | STW | Total |
>> | -------| ----------- | --------------- | --- | ---- |
>> | 8g | 1 T | N | 15.612 | 15.612 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | N | 2.561725 | 14.498 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | C1 | 2.3084878 | 14.198 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | C2 | 10.9355128 | 21.882 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | N | 2.6790452 | 14.012 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | C1 | 2.3044796 | 3.589 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | C2 | 9.7585151 | 20.219 |
>> | 16g | 1 T | N | 26.278 | 26.278 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | N | 5.231374 | 26.417 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | C1 | 5.6946983 | 6.538 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | C2 | 21.8211105 | 41.133 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | N | 6.2445556 | 27.141 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | C1 | 4.6007096 | 6.259 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | C2 | 19.2965783 | 39.007 |
>> | 32g | 1 T | N | 48.149 | 48.149 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | N | 10.7734677 | 61.643 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | C1 | 10.1642097 | 10.903 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | C2 | 43.8407607 | 88.152 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | N | 13.1522042 | 61.432 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | C1 | 9.0954641 | 9.885 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | C2 | 38.9900931 | 80.574 |
>> | 64g | 1 T | N | 100.583 | 100.583 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | N | 20.9233744 | 134.701 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | C1 | 18.5023784 | 19.358 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | C2 | 86.4748377 | 172.707 |
>> | 64g | 96 T | N | 26.7374116 | 126.08 |
>> | 64g | ...
>
> Yi Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   whitespace

Yes thanks, that makes VM_HeapDumper::doit() simpler which is completely the idea 8-)

OK in this new VM_HeapDumper::can_parallel_dump there is a use for num_requested_dump_thread variable, as we print the requested and final thread counts.
We were not doing that before, but it is useful.  I didn't see the change of _num_dump_threads affecting whether this was or was not a parallel dump, but not important if we go with your new method.

(we should call it num_requested_dump_threads and then we are probably done here 8-) )

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13667#issuecomment-1665457390