> On Mar 23, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> On 03/23/2016 07:55 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> ...so I checked what it would be needed if there was such
>>> getPendingReferences() native method. It turns out that a single native
>>> method would not be enough to support the precise direct ByteBuffer
>>> allocation. Here's a refactored webrev that introduces a
>>> getPendingReferences() method which could be turned into a native
>>> equivalent one day. There is another native method needed - int
>>> awaitEnqueuePhaseStart():
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/removeInternalCleaner/webrev.09.part2/
>> I don't think the Reference.awaitEnqueuePhaseStart thing is needed.
>>
>> Rather, I think the Direct-X-Buffer allocation should conspire with
>> the the Direct-X-Buffer cleanups directly to manage that sort of
>> thing, and not add anything to Reference and the reference processing
>> thread. E.g. the phase and signal/wait are purely part of
>> Direct-X-Buffer. (I also think something like that could/should have
>> been done instead of providing Direct-X-Buffer with access to
>> Reference.tryHandlePending, but that's likely water under the bridge
>> now.)
>>
>> Something very roughly like this:
>>
>> allocating thread, after allocation failed
>>
>> bool waitForCleanups() {
>> int epoch = DXB.getCleanupCounter();
>> long start = startTime();
>> long timeout = calcTimeout(start)
>> synchronized (DXB.getCleanupMonitor()) {
>> while (epoch == DBX.getCleanupCounter()) {
>> wait(timeout);
>> timeout = calcTimeout(start);
>> if (timeout <= 0) break;
>> }
>> return epoch != DBX.getCleanupCounter();
>> }
>> }
>>
>> cleanup function, after freeing memory
>>
>> synchronized (DBX.getCleanupMonitor()) {
>> DBX.incCleanupCounter();
>> DBX.getCleanupMonitor().notify_all();
>> }
>>
>> Actually, epoch should probably have been obtained *before* the failed
>> allocation attempt, and should be an argument to waitForCleanups.
>>
>> That's all quite sketchy, but I need to do other things today.
>>
>> Peter, care to try filling this in?
>>
>>
>
> There's no need to maintain a special cleanup counter as java.nio.Bits
> already maintains the amount of currently allocated direct memory (in bytes).
> What your suggestion leads to is similar to one of previous versions of
> java.nio.Bits which waited for some 'timeout' time after invoking System.gc()
> and then re-tried reservation, failing if it didn't succeed. The problem with
> such "asynchronous" approach is that there's no right value of 'timeout' for
> all situations. If you wait for to short time, you might get OOME although
> there are plenty unreachable but still uncleaned direct buffers. If you wait
> for to long, your throughput will suffer. There has to be some "feedback"
> from reference processing to know when there's still beneficial to wait and
> when there's no point in waiting any more.
>
> Regards, Peter
I don't think there's any throughput penalty for a long timeout. The
proper response to waitForCleanups returning false (assuming the epoch
was obtained early and passed as an argument) is OOME. I really doubt
the latency for reporting OOME is of critical importance.
That is, the caller looks something like (not even pretending to write
Java)
alloc = tryAllocatation(allocSize)
if alloc != NULL
return alloc
endif
// Maybe add a retry+wait with a short timeout here,
// to allow existing cleanups to run before requesting
// another gc. Not clear that's really worthwhile, as
// it only comes up when we get here just after a gc
// and the resulting cleanups are not yet all processed.
System.gc()
while true
epoch = getEpoch()
alloc = tryAllocation(allocSize)
if alloc != NULL
return alloc
elif !waitForCleanup(epoch)
throw OOME // No cleanup progress for a while
endif
end
