Markus,
I filed the following bug for you:
JDK-8207266 ThreadMXBean::getThreadAllocatedBytes() can be quicker
for self thread
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8207266
Dan
On 7/13/18 4:46 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 7/13/18 2:44 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 7/13/18 12:35 PM, Markus Gaisbauer wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to use ThreadMXBean::getThreadAllocatedBytes
(com.sun.management) to get the amount of allocated memory of the
current thread in some performance critical code.
Unfortunately, the current implementation can be rather slow and the
duration of each call unpredictable. I ran a test in a JVM with 500
threads. Depending on which thread was queried,
getThreadAllocatedBytes took between 100 ns and 2500 ns.
The root cause of the problem is
ThreadsList::find_JavaThread_from_java_tid which performs a linear
scan through all Java threads in the current process. The more
threads a JVM has, the slower it gets. In the worst case, the thread
with the given TID is found as the last entry in the list.
Before Java 10, the oldest thread is the slowest one to query.
Since Java 10, the youngest thread is the slowest one to query. I
think this was a side effect of introducing "Thread Safe Memory
Reclamation (Thread-SMR) support".
Oldest Thread Youngest Thread
Java 8 8740 ns 76 ns
Java 10 109 ns 2485 ns
It is good to see that longest search is much faster. Erik and Robbin
will be pleased since speeding up traversal of the ThreadsList was one
of the things that we tried to do during the Thread-SMR project.
A first step is get a new bug filed that documents the issue with
ThreadMXBean::getThreadAllocatedBytes(). Perhaps Gary or Serguei
will take care of that.
Dan
A common use case is to query the metric for the current thread
(e.g. before and after performing some operation). This case can be
optimized by introducing a new method: getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes.
I created a patch for http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/ and by
using the new method I saw the following improvements in my test:
Oldest Thread Youngest Thread
Proposal 37 ns 37 ns
This is a 60x improvement over the worst case of the current API. In
the best case of the current API, the new method is still 3 times
faster.
// based on JVM_SetNativeThreadName in jvm.cpp.
JVM_ENTRY(jlong, jmm_GetCurrentThreadAllocatedMemory(JNIEnv *env,
jobject currentThread))
// We don't use a ThreadsListHandle here because the current thread
// must be alive.
oop java_thread = JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(currentThread);
JavaThread* thr = java_lang_Thread::thread(java_thread);
if (thread == thr) {
// only supported for the current thread
return thr->cooked_allocated_bytes();
}
return -1;
JVM_END
The proposed method also fixes the problem, that
getThreadAllocatedBytes itself allocates some memory on the current
thread (two long arrays, 24 bytes) and therefore can slightly skew
measurements. The new method, getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes,
returns exactly the same value if it is called twice without
allocating any memory between those calls.
I also built a variation of this method that could be used to query
allocated memory more efficiently for anyone who already has a
java.lang.Thread object:
JVM_ENTRY(jlong, jmm_GetThreadAllocatedMemory(JNIEnv *env, jobject
threadObj))
// based on code proposedin threadSMR.hpp
ThreadsListHandle tlh;
JavaThread* thr = NULL;
bool is_alive = tlh.cv_internal_thread_to_JavaThread(threadObj,
&thr, NULL);
if (is_alive) {
return thr->cooked_allocated_bytes();
}
return -1;
JVM_END
This method took 70 ns in my test, which is 85% slower
than GetCurrentThreadAllocatedMemory but still 30% faster than the
best case of the current API. I currently have no immediate need for
this second method, but I think it would also be a valueable
addition to the API.
I attached a patch for getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes. I can create
a second patch for also adding
getThreadAllocatedMemory(java.lang.Thread) to the API.
I am a first time contributor and I am not 100% sure what process I
must follow to get a change like this into OpenJDK. Can someone have
a look at my proposal and help me through the process?
Best regards,
Markus
I believe this is the code that's causing you grief:
open/src/hotspot/share/services/management.cpp:
// Gets an array containing the amount of memory allocated on the Java
// heap for a set of threads (in bytes). Each element of the array is
// the amount of memory allocated for the thread ID specified in the
// corresponding entry in the given array of thread IDs; or -1 if the
// thread does not exist or has terminated.
JVM_ENTRY(void, jmm_GetThreadAllocatedMemory(JNIEnv *env, jlongArray ids,
jlongArray sizeArray))
// Check if threads is null
if (ids == NULL || sizeArray == NULL) {
THROW(vmSymbols::java_lang_NullPointerException());
}
ResourceMark rm(THREAD);
typeArrayOop ta = typeArrayOop(JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(ids));
typeArrayHandle ids_ah(THREAD, ta);
typeArrayOop sa = typeArrayOop(JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(sizeArray));
typeArrayHandle sizeArray_h(THREAD, sa);
// validate the thread id array
validate_thread_id_array(ids_ah, CHECK);
// sizeArray must be of the same length as the given array of thread IDs
int num_threads = ids_ah->length();
if (num_threads != sizeArray_h->length()) {
THROW_MSG(vmSymbols::java_lang_IllegalArgumentException(),
"The length of the given long array does not match the
length of "
"the given array of thread IDs");
}
ThreadsListHandle tlh;
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; i++) {
JavaThread* java_thread =
tlh.list()->find_JavaThread_from_java_tid(ids_ah->long_at(i));
if (java_thread != NULL) {
sizeArray_h->long_at_put(i, java_thread->cooked_allocated_bytes());
}
}
JVM_END
Perhaps something like this above the "ThreadsListHandle tlh;" line:
if (num_threads == 1 && THREAD->is_Java_thread()) {
// Only asking for 1 thread so if we're a JavaThread, then
// see if this request is for ourself.
JavaThread* jt = THREAD;
oop tobj = jt->threadObj();
if (ids_ah->long_at(0) == java_lang_Thread::thread_id(tobj)) {
// Return the info for ourself.
sizeArray_h->long_at_put(0, jt->cooked_allocated_bytes());
return;
}
}
I haven't checked to see if this will even compile, but I
think you'll get the idea.
Dan
