JEP [DRAFT]: Container aware Java
kedar.mhaswade at gmail.com
Thu Feb 15 18:30:16 UTC 2018
This appears useful.
Will Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() return the processors
available to the container after this integration, or will a new API be
provided? I have seen thread pools being misconfigured (e.g. it returns the
number of processors available on the host which is far more than that of
processors allotted by cgroups to the container) because of the confusion
(or because of just using the non-container-aware code).
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com>
> > On Feb 15, 2018, at 12:52 PM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>
> > Sounds cool!
> > Is this JEP only about providing the corresponding API or also about
> > using it internally (within HotSpot and class library) to better adopt
> > to environment the JVM is running in?
> Thanks Volker.
> I integrated JDK-8146115 into JDK 10 which allows Hotspot to adapt to the
> container it’s running in. The configuration that is examined includes
> memory limits,
> cpu count including cpu shares and quotas.
> This JEP’s main focus is to provide an internal API that can be used by
> JDK tools
> such as JFR and JMX to export container statistics and configuration
> data. This JEP
> does not include the JFR and JMX implementations. They will hopefully
> follow shortly after.
> > Either way, looking forward to see (and test) the first implementation
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com>
> >> I’d like to re-propose the following JEP that will enhance the Java
> runtime to be more container aware.
> >> This will add an Internal Java API that will provide container specific
> statistics. Some of the initial goals
> >> of the previous JEP proposal has been integrated into JDK 10 under an
> RFE (JDK-8146115).
> >> This JEP is now focused on providing a Java API that exports Container
> runtime configuration and metrics.
> >> Since the scope of this JEP have changed, I’m re-submitting it for
> comment and endorsement.
> >> JEP Issue:
> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182070
> >> Here’s a Text dump of the JEP contents for your convenience:
> >> Summary
> >> -------
> >> Container aware Java runtime
> >> Goals
> >> -----
> >> Provide an internal API that can be used to extract container specific
> configuration and runtime statistics. This JEP will only support Docker on
> Linux-x64 although the design should be flexible enough to allow support
> for other platforms and container technologies. The initial focus will be
> on Linux cgroups technology so that we will be able to easily support other
> container technologies running on Linux in addition to Docker.
> >> Non-Goals
> >> ---------
> >> It is not a goal of this JEP to support any platform other than Docker
> container technology running on Linux x64.
> >> Success Metrics
> >> ---------------
> >> Success will be measured by the improvement in information that will be
> available to tools which visualize resource usage of containers that are
> running Java processes.
> >> Motivation
> >> ----------
> >> Container technology is becoming more and more prevalent in Cloud based
> applications. The Cloud Serverless application programming model motivates
> developers to split large monolithic applications into 100s of smaller
> pieces each running in thier own container. This move increases the
> importance of the observability of each running container process. Adding
> the proposed set of APIs will allow more details related to each container
> process to be made available to external tools thereby improving the
> >> Description
> >> -----------
> >> This enhancement will be made up of the following work items:
> >> A. Detecting if Java is running in a container.
> >> The Java runtime, as well as any tests that we might write for this
> feature, will need to be able to detect that the current Java process is
> running in a container. A new API will be made available for this purpose.
> >> B. Exposing container resource limits, configuration and runtime
> >> There are several configuration options and limits that can be imposed
> upon a running container. Not all of these
> >> are important to a running Java process. We clearly want to be able to
> detect how many CPUs have been allocated to our process along with the
> maximum amount of memory that the process has been allocated but there are
> other options that we might want to base runtime decisions on.
> >> In addition, since Container typically impose limits on system
> resources, they also provide the ability to easily access the amount of
> consumption of these resources. The goal is to provide this information in
> addition to the configuration data.
> >> I propose adding a new jdk.internal.Platform class that will allow
> access to this information.
> >> Here are some of the types of configuration and consumption statistics
> that would be made available:
> >> isContainerized
> >> Memory Limit
> >> Total Memory Limit
> >> Soft Memory Limit
> >> Max Memory Usage
> >> Current Memory Usage
> >> Maximum Kernel Memory
> >> CPU Shares
> >> CPU Period
> >> CPU Quota
> >> Number of CPUs
> >> CPU Sets
> >> CPU Set Memory Nodes
> >> CPU Usage
> >> CPU Usage Per CPU
> >> Block I/O Weight
> >> Block I/O Device Weight
> >> Device I/O Read Rate
> >> Device I/O Write Rate
> >> OOM Kill Enabled
> >> OOM Score Adjustment
> >> Memory Swappiness
> >> Shared Memory Size
> >> Alternatives
> >> ------------
> >> There are a few existing tools available to extract some of the same
> container statistics. These tools could be used instead. The benefit of
> providing a core Java internal API is that this information can be expose
> by current Java serviceability tools such as JMX and JFR along side other
> JVM specific information.
> >> Testing
> >> -------
> >> Docker/container specific tests should be added in order to validate
> the functionality being provided with this JEP.
> >> Risks and Assumptions
> >> ---------------------
> >> Docker is currently based on cgroups v1. Cgroups v2 is also available
> but is incomplete and not yet supported by Docker. It's possible that v2
> could replace v1 in an incompatible way rendering this work unusable until
> it is upgraded.
> >> Other alternative container technologies based on hypervisors are being
> developed that could replace the use of cgroups for container isloation.
> >> Dependencies
> >> -----------
> >> None at this time.
More information about the core-libs-dev