[RFR]: Per thread IO statistics in JFR

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Thu Jan 17 08:00:07 UTC 2019

On 17/01/2019 07:23, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> :
> Do you object against keeping these counters (which basically boils 
> down to Thread::current->stat_structure->counter++)? Or do you even 
> object against making upcalls into the jvm? Note that, if deemed 
> necessary, we could omit updating the counters unless JFR or our 
> extended thread dumps are activated (which are the consumers of the 
> counters).
> In any case, I would have assumed the costs for upcall + counter 
> update to be insignificant compared to the IO calls. We should of 
> course measure that.
> If you generally object upcalls into the libjvm for 
> statistical/monitoring reasons, this would make matters on a number of 
> fronts more complicated. For instance, it was discussed extending NMT 
> coverage to the JDK - which is already in part reality at 
> Unsafe.AllocateMemory - and this would have to be done with upcalls too.
There are many issues here that will need write-up and discussion, maybe 
a JEP if discussions converge on a proposal to bring into the main line 
as this is a significant change with implications for many areas of the 
platform. It also potentially conflicts in direction with some of the 
other projects in progress (particularly with Loom trying to re-imagine 
threads, do you really want to collect I/O stats on a per thread basis 
in the future???).

As regards the points to instrument then I think we have to assume that 
much of the native code that is targeted by the current webrev will go 
away or change significantly in the future. We've been on that path for 
some time, e.g. the zip area or the prototype to replace the SocketImpl 
used for classic networking that eliminates a lot of the native code 
touched in that area by the webrev. Once Panama is further along then I 
assume we will want to make use of it in the core libraries and at least 
initially replace the JNI methods that just wrap syscalls today, and 
longer term more significant refactoring. My point is that instrumenting 
native methods may not be the right approach, instead maybe we should be 
look at instrumenting the I/O paths at the java level as that will 
likely play better with the VM. There is some support for collecting I/O 
stats in JFR today and maybe someone working in that area can explain 
that a bit more and what the issues are.

It's impossible to tell from the mail with the webrev what has been 
explored and not explored. It feels like early stages in a much large 
project that will need a write up of prototypes before a direction can 
be proposed.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list