RFR (M): 8077144: Concurrent mark initialization takes too long (original) (raw)

Mikael Gerdin mikael.gerdin at oracle.com
Thu Mar 17 13:12:30 UTC 2016

Hi Thomas,

On 2016-03-15 23:12, Thomas Schatzl wrote:

Hi Mikael,

updated webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8077144/webrev.3/ (full) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8077144/webrev.2to3/ (diff)

Overall I think this looks okay, given that you want to put further work into this part of the code.

For future cleanups, here's a couple of comments

g1ConcurrentMark.cpp:

"inline void set_card_bitmap_range(BitMap* bm,"

Since the name already implies that it mutates the card bitmap, perhaps remove the "bm" parameter"? The "inline" keyword is superfluous here, the method is already defined inline in the class.

" // Updates the live data count for the given heap region and returns the number // of bytes marked. size_t create_live_data_count(HeapRegion* hr) {"

The comment and method name could be clearer with the fact that it's re-creating the data for verification purposes.

" void set_bit_for_region(HeapRegion* hr) { BitMap::idx_t index = (BitMap::idx_t) hr->hrm_index(); _region_bm->par_at_put(index, true); }"

I'm not convinced that the _region_bm even needs to be part of the "helper". Perhaps it would be cleaner if the helper class was only responsible for the card bitmap and the modification of the region bit map was moved elsewhere?

/Mikael

which implements the suggested changes. It makes the change a lot nicer, thanks for the suggestion. There are still possibilities for improvements. I would prefer to do larger refactorings (particularly to improve testability/code quality and add test cases) after moving all this related code into a separate class/file, which will be next in JDK-8151386 and maybe one or two follow-ups. With that in place, this liveness information can then also be used with fully coarsened per-region tables in remset. Testing: jprt, vm.gc with -XX:+VerifyDuringGC, local checking of markedbytes values. Thanks, Thomas On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 16:37 +0100, Mikael Gerdin wrote: Hi,

I had an IM discussion with Thomas around some issues with the design of the aggregation and verification code. G1LiveDataClosureBase should become a utlility class instead of a base class. It's weird that the G1VerifyLiveDataHRClosure embeds another HRClosure and calls doHeapRegion on it, it would be better if the markmarkedduringmarking and markallocatedsincemarking methods could be called right away. Markmarkedduringmarking should return the marked bytes instead and let the caller take care of mutating the heap region and doing the yield check. There is currently a bug where the verification code calls addtomarkedbytes on the HeapRegion. There is also an issue with how addtomarkedbytes is called on HumongousContinues regions since markedbytes is aggregated in each iteration and then the aggregate is added to the current hr. It might be a good idea to hold off on reviews until the updated webrev is out. /Mikael On 2016-03-14 14:15, Thomas Schatzl wrote: Hi all,

could I have reviews for this from-scratch solution for the problem that G1 startup takes too long? Current G1 uses per-mark thread liveness mark bitmaps that span the entire heap to be ultimately able to create information about areas in the heap where there are any live objects on a card basis. This information is needed for scrubbing remembered sets later. Basically, in addition to updating the previous bitmap required for SATB, the marking threads also, for every live object, mark all bits corresponding to the area the object covers on a per thread basis on these per-thread liveness mark bitmaps. During the remark pause, this information is aggregated into (two) global bitmaps ("Liveness Count Data"), then in the cleanup pause augmented with some more liveness information, and then used for scrubbing the remembered sets. The main problems with that solution: - the per-mark thread data structures take up a lot of space. E.g. with 64 mark threads, this data structure has the same size of the Java heap. Now, when you need to use 60 mark threads, the heap is big. And at those heap sizes, needing that much more memory hurts a lot. - management of these additional data structures is costly, it takes a long time to initialize, and regularly clear them. The increased startup time has actually been the cause for this issue. - it takes a significant amount of time to aggregate this data in the remark pause. - it slows down marking, the combined bitmap update (the prev bitmap and these per-thread bitmaps) is slower than doing these phases seperately. This proposed solution removes the per-thread additional mark bitmaps, and recreates this information from the (complete) prev bitmap in an extra concurrent phase after the Remark pause. This can be done since the Prev bitmap does not change after Remark any more. In total, this separation of the tasks is faster (lowers concurrent cycle time) than doing this work at once for the following reasons: - I did not observe any throughput regresssions with this change: actually, throughput of some large applications even increases with that change (not taking into account that you could increase heap size now since not so much is taken up by these additional bitmaps). - the concurrent phase to prepare for the next marking is much shorter now, since we do not need to clear lots of memory any more. - the remark pause can be much faster (I have measurements of a decrease in the order of a magnitude on large applications, where this aggregation phase dominates the remark pause). - startup and footprint naturally decreases significantly, particularly on large systems. As a nice side-effect, the change in effect removes a significant amount of LOC. There is a follow-up change to move (and later clean up) the still remaining data structures required for scrubbing into extra classes, since they will be used more cleverly in the future (JDK-8151386). There will be another follow-up change without CR yet to fix the use of an excessive amount of parallel gc threads for clearing the liveness count data. The change is based on JDK-8151614, JDK-8151126 (I do not think it conflicts with that actually), and JDK-8151534 (array allocator refactoring). CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077144 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8077144/webrev.2/ Testing: jprt, vm.gc, kitchensink, some perf benchmarks Thanks, Thomas

More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list