Hi Paul,
Thanks for reviewing!
>>
>> I'd move all the argument parsing code to JMap.java and just pass
the results to Hotspot. Both histo() in JMap.java and code in attachListener.*
parse the command line arguments, though the code in histo() doesn't parse the
argument to "parallel". I'd upgrade the code in histo() to do a complete parse
and pass the option values to executeCommandForPid as before: there would just
be more of them now. That would allow you to eliminate all the parsing code in
attachListener.cpp as well as the change to arguments.hpp.
>>
The reason I made the change in Jmap.java that compose all arguments as 1
string , instead of passing 3 argments, is to avoid the compatibility issue, as
we discussed in
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2019-February/thread.html#27240.
The root cause of the compatibility issue is because max argument count in
HotspotVirtualMachineImpl.java and attachlistener.cpp need to be enlarged
(changes like http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e7cf035682e3#l2.1) when
jmap has more than 3 arguments. But if user use an old jcmd/jmap tool, it may
stuck at socket read(), because the "max argument count" don't match.
I re-checked this change, the argument count of jmap histo is equal to 3
(live, file, parallel), so it can work normally even without the change of
passing argument. But I think we have to face the problem if more arguments is
added in jcmd alike tools later, not sure whether it should be sloved (or a
workaround) in this changeset.
And here are the lastest webrev and delta:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_06/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_06-delta/
Cheers,
Lin
On 2020/7/7, 5:57 AM, "Hohensee, Paul" <hohen...@amazon.com> wrote:
I'd like to see this feature added. :)
The CSR looks good, as does the basic parallel inspection algorithm.
Stefan's done the GC part, so I'll stick to the non-GC part (fwiw, the GC part
lgtm).
I'd move all the argument parsing code to JMap.java and just pass the
results to Hotspot. Both histo() in JMap.java and code in attachListener.*
parse the command line arguments, though the code in histo() doesn't parse the
argument to "parallel". I'd upgrade the code in histo() to do a complete parse
and pass the option values to executeCommandForPid as before: there would just
be more of them now. That would allow you to eliminate all the parsing code in
attachListener.cpp as well as the change to arguments.hpp.
heapInspection.hpp:
_shared_miss_count (s/b _missed_count, see below) isn't a size, so it
should be a uint instead of a size_t. Same with the new parallel_thread_num
argument to heap_inspection() and populate_table().
Comment copy-edit:
+// Parallel heap inspection task. Parallel inspection can fail due to
+// a native OOM when allocating memory for TL-KlassInfoTable.
+// _success will be set false on an OOM, and serial inspection tried.
_shared_miss_count should be _missed_count to match the missed_count()
getter, or rename missed_count() to be shared_miss_count(). Whichever way you
go, the field type should match the getter result type: uint is reasonable.
heapInspection.cpp:
You might use ResourceMark twice in populate_table, separately for the
parallel attempt and the serial code. If the parallel attempt fails and
available memory is low, it would be good to clean up the memory used by the
parallel attempt before doing the serial code.
Style nit in KlassInfoTable::merge_entry(). I'd line up the definitions of
k and elt, so "k" is even with "elt". And, because it's two lines shorter, I'd
replace
+ } else {
+ return false;
+ }
with
+ return false;
KlassInfoTableMergeClosure.is_success() should be just success() (i.e., no
"is_" prefix) because it's a getter.
I'd reorganize the code in populate_table() to make it more clear, vis (I
changed _shared_missed_count to _missed_count)
+ if (cit.allocation_failed()) {
+ // fail to allocate memory, stop parallel mode
+ Atomic::store(&_success, false);
+ return;
+ }
+ RecordInstanceClosure ric(&cit, _filter);
+ _poi->object_iterate(&ric, worker_id);
+ missed_count = ric.missed_count();
+ {
+ MutexLocker x(&_mutex);
+ merge_success = _shared_cit->merge(&cit);
+ }
+ if (merge_success) {
+ Atomic::add(&_missed_count, missed_count);
+ else {
+ Atomic::store(&_success, false);
+ }
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/29/20, 7:20 PM, "linzang(臧琳)" <linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
Dear All,
Sorry to bother again, I just want to make sure that is this
change worth to be continue to work on? If decision is made to not. I think I
can drop this work and stop asking for help reviewing...
Thanks for all your help about reviewing this previously.
BRs,
Lin
On 2020/5/9, 3:47 PM, "linzang(臧琳)" <linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
Dear All,
May I ask your help again for review the latest change?
Thanks!
BRs,
Lin
On 2020/4/28, 1:54 PM, "linzang(臧琳)" <linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
>> - Adding Atomic::load/store.
>> - Removing the time measurement in the run_task. I
renamed G1's function
>> to run_task_timed. If we need this outside of G1, we can
rethink the API
>> at that point.
>> - ZGC style cleanups
Thanks for revising the patch, they are all good to me, and
I have made a tiny change based on it:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_04/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_04-delta/
it reduce the scope of mutex in ParHeapInspectTask, and
delete unnecessary comments.
BRs,
Lin
On 2020/4/27, 4:34 PM, "Stefan Karlsson"
<stefan.karls...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Lin,
On 2020-04-26 05:10, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
> Hi Stefan and Paul，
> I have made a new patch based on your comments and
Stefan's Poc code:
> Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_03/
> Delta(based on Stefan's change:) :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_03-delta/webrev_03-delta/
Thanks for providing a delta patch. It makes it much easier
to look at,
and more likely for reviewers to continue reviewing.
I'm going to continue focusing on the GC parts, and leave
the rest to
others to review.
>
> And Here are main changed I made and want to discuss
with you:
> 1. changed"parallelThreadNum=" to "parallel=" for
jmap -histo options.
> 2. Add logic to test where parallelHeapInspection
is fail, in heapInspection.cpp
> This is because the parHeapInspectTask create
thread local KlassInfoTable in it's work() method, and this may fail because of
native OOM, in this case, the parallel should fail and serial heap inspection
can be tried.
> One more thing I want discuss with you is
about the member "_success" of parHeapInspectTask, when native OOM happenes, it
is set to false. And since this "set" operation can be conducted in multiple
threads, should it be atomic ops? IMO, this is not necessary because
"_success" can only be set to false, and there is no way to change it from back
to true after the ParHeapInspectTask instance is created, so it is save to be
non-atomic, do you agree with that?
In these situations you should be using the
Atomic::load/store
primitives. We're moving toward a later C++ standard were
data races are
considered undefined behavior.
> 3. make CollectedHeap::run_task() be an abstract
virtual func, so that every subclass of collectedHeap should support it, so
later implementation of new collectedHeap will not miss the "parallel" features.
> The problem I want to discuss with you is about
epsilonHeap and SerialHeap, as they may not need parallel heap iteration, so I
only make task->work(0), in case the run_task() is invoked someway in future.
Another way is to left run_task() unimplemented, which one do you think is
better?
I don't have a strong opinion about this.
And also please help take a look at the zHeap, as there
is a class
zTask that wrap the abstractGangTask, and the
collectedHeap::run_task()
only accept AbstraceGangTask* as argument, so I made a
delegate class
to adapt it , please see src/hotspot/share/gc/z/zHeap.cpp.
>
> There maybe other better ways to sovle the above
problems, welcome for any comments, Thanks!
I've created a few cleanups and changes on top of your
latest patch:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8215624/webrev.02.delta
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8215624/webrev.02
- Adding Atomic::load/store.
- Removing the time measurement in the run_task. I renamed
G1's function
to run_task_timed. If we need this outside of G1, we can
rethink the API
at that point.
- ZGC style cleanups
Thanks,
StefanK
>
> BRs,
> Lin
>
> On 2020/4/23, 11:08 AM, "linzang(臧琳)"
<linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Paul! I agree with using "parallel", will
make the update in next patch, Thanks for help update the CSR.
>
> BRs,
> Lin
>
> On 2020/4/23, 4:42 AM, "Hohensee, Paul"
<hohen...@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> For the interface, I'd use "parallel" instead of
"parallelThreadNum". All the other options are lower case, and it's a lot
easier to type "parallel". I took the liberty of updating the CSR. If you're ok
with it, you might want to change variable names and such, plus of course
JMap.usage.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> On 4/22/20, 2:29 AM, "serviceability-dev on
behalf of linzang(臧琳)" <serviceability-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net on behalf
of linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Stefan,
>
> Thanks a lot! I agree with you to
decouple the heap inspection code with GC's.
> I will start from your POC code,
may discuss with you later.
>
>
> BRs,
> Lin
>
> On 2020/4/22, 5:14 PM, "Stefan Karlsson"
<stefan.karls...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Lin,
>
> I took a look at this earlier and saw
that the heap inspection code is
> strongly coupled with the CollectedHeap
and G1CollectedHeap. I'd prefer
> if we'd abstract this away, so that the
GCs only provide a "parallel
> object iteration" interface, and the
heap inspection code is kept elsewhere.
>
> I started experimenting with doing that,
but other higher-priority (to
> me) tasks have had to take precedence.
>
> I've uploaded my work-in-progress /
proof-of-concept:
>
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8215624/webrev.01.delta/
>
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8215624/webrev.01/
>
> The current code doesn't handle the
lifecycle (deletion) of the
> ParallelObjectIterators. There's also
code left unimplemented in around
> CollectedHeap::run_task. However, I
think this could work as a basis to
> pull out the heap inspection code out of
the GCs.
>
> Thanks,
> StefanK
>
> On 2020-04-22 02:21, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > May I ask you help to review?
This RFR has been there for quite a while.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > BRs,
> > Lin
> >
> > > On 2020/3/16, 5:18 PM, "linzang(臧琳)"
<linz...@tencent.com> wrote:>
> >
> >> Just update a new path, my
preliminary measure show about 3.5x speedup of jmap histo on a nearly full 4GB
G1 heap (8-core platform with parallel thread number set to 4).
> >> webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_02/
> >> bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215624
> >> CSR:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239290
> >> BRs,
> >> Lin
> >> > On 2020/3/2, 9:56 PM,
"linzang(臧琳)" <linz...@tencent.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dear all,
> >> > Let me try to ease
the reviewing work by some explanation :P
> >> > The patch's target
is to speed up jmap -histo for heap iteration, from my experience it is
necessary for large heap investigation. E.g in bigData scenario I have tried to
conduct jmap -histo against 180GB heap, it does take quite a while.
> >> > And if my
understanding is corrent, even the jmap -histo without "live" option does heap
inspection with heap lock acquired. so it is very likely to block mutator
thread in allocation-sensitive scenario. I would say the faster the heap
inspection does, the shorter the mutator be blocked. This is parallel iteration
for jmap is necessary.
> >> > I think the parallel
heap inspection should be applied to all kind of heap. However, consider the
heap layout are different for GCs, much time is required to understand all
kinds of the heap layout to make the whole change. IMO, It is not wise to have
a huge patch for the whole solution at once, and it is even harder to review
it. So I plan to implement it incrementally, the first patch (this one) is
going to confirm the implemention detail of how jmap accept the new option,
passes it to attachListener of the jvm process and then how to make the
parallel inspection closure be generic enough to make it easy to extend to
different heap layout. And also how to implement the heap inspection in
specific gc's heap. This patch use G1's heap as the begining.
> >> > This patch actually
do several things:
> >> > 1. Add an option
"parallelThreadNum=<N>" to jmap -histo, the default behavior is to set N to 0,
means let's JVM decide how many threads to use for heap inspection. Set this
option to 1 will disable parallel heap inspection. (more details in CSR:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239290)
> >> > 2. Make a change in
how Jmap passing arguments, changes in
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_01/src/jdk.jcmd/share/classes/sun/tools/jmap/JMap.java.udiff.html,
originally it pass options as separate arguments to attachListener, this patch
change to that all options be compose to a single string. So the arg_count_max
in attachListener.hpp do not need to be changed, and hence avoid the
compatibility issue, as disscussed at
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2019-March/027334.html
> >> > 3. Add an abstract
class ParHeapInspectTask in heapInspection.hpp / heapInspection.cpp, It's
work(uint worker_id) method prepares the data structure (KlassInfoTable) need
for every parallel worker thread, and then call do_object_iterate_parallel()
which is heap specific implementation. I also added some machenism in
KlassInfoTable to support parallel iteration, such as merge().
> >> > 4. In specific heap
(G1 in this patch), create a subclass of ParHeapInspectTask, implement the
do_object_iterate_parallel() for parallel heap inspection. For G1, it simply
invoke g1CollectedHeap's object_iterate_parallel().
> >> > 5. Add related test.
> >> > 6. it may be easy to
extend this patch for other kinds of heap by creating subclass of
ParHeapInspectTask and implement the do_object_iterate_parallel().
> >> >
> >> > Hope these info could help
on code review and initate the discussion :-)
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > BRs,
> >> > Lin
> >> > >On 2020/2/19, 9:40 AM,
"linzang(臧琳)" <linz...@tencent.com> wrote:.
> >> > >
> >> > > Re-post this RFR with
correct enhancement number to make it trackable.
> >> > > please ignore the
previous wrong post. sorry for troubles.
> >> > >
> >> > > webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215624/webrev_01/
> >> > > Hi bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215624
> >> > > CSR:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239290
> >> > > --------------
> >> > > Lin
> >> > > >Hi Lin,
> > > > > >
> >> > > >Could you, please,
re-post your RFR with the right enhancement number in
> >> > > >the message subject?
> >> > > >It will be more
trackable this way.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Thanks,
> >> > > >Serguei
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On 2/17/20 10:29 PM,
linzang(臧琳) wrote:
> >> > > >> Dear David,
> >> > > >> Thanks a
lot!
> >> > > >> I have
updated the refined code to
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215264/webrev_01/.
> >> > > >> IMHO the
parallel heap inspection can be extended to all kinds of heap as long as the
heap layout can support parallel iteration.
> >> > > >> Maybe we
can firstly use this webrev to discuss how to implement it, because I am not
sure my current implementation is an appropriate way to communicate with
collectedHeap, then we can extend the solution to other kinds of heap.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> --------------
> >> > > >> Lin
> >> > > >>> Hi Lin,
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Adding in
hotspot-gc-dev as they need to see how this interacts with GC
> >> > > >>> worker threads,
and whether it needs to be extended beyond G1.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> I happened to spot
one nit when browsing:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/collectedHeap.hpp
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> + virtual bool
run_par_heap_inspect_task(KlassInfoTable* cit,
> >> > > >>> +
BoolObjectClosure* filter,
> >> > > >>> +
size_t* missed_count,
> >> > > >>> +
size_t thread_num) {
> >> > > >>> + return NULL;
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> s/NULL/false/
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Cheers,
> >> > > >>> David
> > > > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On 18/02/2020
2:15 pm, linzang(臧琳) wrote:
> >> > > >>>> Dear All,
> >> > > >>>> May I
ask your help to review the follow changes:
> >> > > >>>> webrev:
> >> > > >>>>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/jmap-8214535/8215264/webrev_00/
> >> > > >>>> bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215624
> >> > > >>>> related
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239290
> >> > > >>>> This
patch enable parallel heap inspection of G1 for jmap histo.
> >> > > >>>> my
simple test shown it can speed up 2x of jmap -histo with
> >> > > >>>>
parallelThreadNum set to 2 for heap at ~500M on 4-core platform.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>> BRs,
> >> > > >>>> Lin
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
