Hi Jan,
This list is fine for reporting Nashorn related problems.
Is it correct that the second batch of business logic is evaluated into
a completely new set of script engines? In that case I'm not sure how
the problem could be with Nashorn, since different script engines should
not share anything. So that could hint at a problem deeper down in the
implementation of method handles.
If you are using JDK 8_25 (not sure I parse the version string
correctly) one thing you could try is to use a newer JDK 8 update
release. There are a few issues that have been fixed in later releases.
Hannes
Am 2016-03-10 um 13:13 schrieb Jan Bauer Nielsen:
First of all I'm sorry if this is not the right forum for this type of
question, but I haven't been able to find a nashorn-user mailing list
or anything like that.
We have an enterprise application (using GlassFish 4.1 as application
server) which sits in the middle of a processing pipeline receiving
data messages from a JMS queue and applying business logic in the form
of substantial (30.000+ lines) javascripts to said data. The business
logic is user defined, varies on the type of input format, and as such
is not known to us at application startup. The setup in question
allows for 8 concurrent processor threads, where each thread evals
into (and caches) one script engine per unique set of business logic
(the cache is actually on the EJB level and not on the thread level).
Submitting a batch requiring business-logic-x results in below eval
times:
[2016-03-10 09:15:41,756] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 43] Module eval
took 6540 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:42,918] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 39] Module eval
took 7663 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:44,188] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 46] Module eval
took 9000 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:44,670] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 42] Module eval
took 9481 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:44,920] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 41] Module eval
took 9681 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:45,043] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 40] Module eval
took 9784 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:45,196] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 44] Module eval
took 9944 ms
[2016-03-10 09:15:45,427] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 45] Module eval
took 10222 ms
Subsequently submitting another batch requiring business-logic-y
forcing more script engines to be created (simulated here by clearing
cached script engines from application and resubmitting batch for
business-logic-x) results in much worse performance:
[2016-03-10 09:26:07,129] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 31] Module eval
took 226070 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:14,760] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 40] Module eval
took 234753 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:17,167] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 26] Module eval
took 230762 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:22,174] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 36] Module eval
took 235614 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:22,978] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 30] Module eval
took 238836 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:28,909] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 38] Module eval
took 242011 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:40,921] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 32] Module eval
took 252076 ms
[2016-03-10 09:26:50,700] [INFO] [p: thread-pool-1; w: 35] Module eval
took 262625 ms
We are not seeing anything out of the ordinary with regard to GC,
apart from survivor space often being near 100% full before objects
are moved to old-gen. Heap and code cache are nowhere near to being
exhausted.
Unfortunately we haven't been able to get java flight recorder to work
with this GlassFish installation, but jvisualvm samples indicates that
80% of our time is being spent in
java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleNatives.setCallSiteTargetNormal().
We have tried running both single threaded and with a shared script
engine creating separate script contexts, and although we are seeing
much better performance in these cases, we are still seeing an
increase in eval times nonetheless (in the shared engine case, the
eval times of the second batch is a factor 10 less than the numbers
above, but it is still a factor 5 larger than the initial batch).
We are running on java build 25.72-b15.
Any input as to what we might be doing wrong and possibly how to avoid
it would be very much appreciated.
This problem has actually forced us to remain on the Rhino script
engine for the time being.
Kind regards,
Jan Bauer Nielsen
Software developer
DBC as
http://www.dbc.dk/english
