JDK-8171119: Low-Overhead Heap Profiling

JC Beyler jcbeyler at google.com
Tue Feb 13 05:18:28 UTC 2018

Hi Erik,

Thanks for your answers, I've now inlined my own answers/comments.

I've done a new webrev here:

The incremental is here:

Note to all:
  - I've been integrating changes from Erin/Serguei/David comments so this
webrev incremental is a bit an answer to all comments in one. I apologize
for that :)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Erik Österlund <erik.osterlund at oracle.com>

> Hi JC,
> Sorry for the delayed reply.
> Inlined answers:
> On 2018-02-06 00:04, JC Beyler wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>> (Renaming this to be folded into the newly renamed thread :))
>> First off, thanks a lot for reviewing the webrev! I appreciate it!
>> I updated the webrev to:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.05a/
>> And the incremental one is here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.04_05a/
>> It contains:
>> - The change for since from 9 to 11 for the jvmti.xml
>> - The use of the OrderAccess for initialized
>> - Clearing the oop
>> I also have inlined my answers to your comments. The biggest question
>> will come from the multiple *_end variables. A bit of the logic there
>> is due to handling the slow path refill vs fast path refill and
>> checking that the rug was not pulled underneath the slowpath. I
>> believe that a previous comment was that TlabFastRefill was going to
>> be deprecated.
>> If this is true, we could revert this code a bit and just do a : if
>> TlabFastRefill is enabled, disable this. And then deprecate that when
>> TlabFastRefill is deprecated.
>> This might simplify this webrev and I can work on a follow-up that
>> either: removes TlabFastRefill if Robbin does not have the time to do
>> it or add the support to the assembly side to handle this correctly.
>> What do you think?
> I support removing TlabFastRefill, but I think it is good to not depend on
> that happening first.

I'm slowly pushing on the FastTLABRefill (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net
/browse/JDK-8194084), I agree on keeping both separate for now though so
that we can think of both differently

> Now, below, inlined are my answers:
>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Erik Österlund
>> <erik.osterlund at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Hi JC,
>>> Hope I am reviewing the right version of your work. Here goes...
>>> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/collectedHeap.inline.hpp:
>>>   159     AllocTracer::send_allocation_outside_tlab(klass, result, size
>>> *
>>> HeapWordSize, THREAD);
>>>   160
>>>   161     THREAD->tlab().handle_sample(THREAD, result, size);
>>>   162     return result;
>>>   163   }
>>> Should not call tlab()->X without checking if (UseTLAB) IMO.
>>> Done!
> More about this later.
>> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/threadLocalAllocBuffer.cpp:
>>> So first of all, there seems to quite a few ends. There is an "end", a
>>> "hard
>>> end", a "slow path end", and an "actual end". Moreover, it seems like the
>>> "hard end" is actually further away than the "actual end". So the "hard
>>> end"
>>> seems like more of a "really definitely actual end" or something. I don't
>>> know about you, but I think it looks kind of messy. In particular, I
>>> don't
>>> feel like the name "actual end" reflects what it represents, especially
>>> when
>>> there is another end that is behind the "actual end".
>>>   413 HeapWord* ThreadLocalAllocBuffer::hard_end() {
>>>   414   // Did a fast TLAB refill occur?
>>>   415   if (_slow_path_end != _end) {
>>>   416     // Fix up the actual end to be now the end of this TLAB.
>>>   417     _slow_path_end = _end;
>>>   418     _actual_end = _end;
>>>   419   }
>>>   420
>>>   421   return _actual_end + alignment_reserve();
>>>   422 }
>>> I really do not like making getters unexpectedly have these kind of side
>>> effects. It is not expected that when you ask for the "hard end", you
>>> implicitly update the "slow path end" and "actual end" to new values.
>>> As I said, a lot of this is due to the FastTlabRefill. If I make this
>> not supporting FastTlabRefill, this goes away. The reason the system
>> needs to update itself at the get is that you only know at that get if
>> things have shifted underneath the tlab slow path. I am not sure of
>> really better names (naming is hard!), perhaps we could do these
>> names:
>> - current_tlab_end       // Either the allocated tlab end or a sampling
>> point
>> - last_allocation_address  // The end of the tlab allocation
>> - last_slowpath_allocated_end  // In case a fast refill occurred the
>> end might have changed, this is to remember slow vs fast past refills
>> the hard_end method can be renamed to something like:
>> tlab_end_pointer()        // The end of the lab including a bit of
>> alignment reserved bytes
> Those names sound better to me. Could you please provide a mapping from
> the old names to the new names so I understand which one is which please?
> This is my current guess of what you are proposing:
> end -> current_tlab_end
> actual_end -> last_allocation_address
> slow_path_end -> last_slowpath_allocated_end
> hard_end -> tlab_end_pointer
Yes that is correct, that was what I was proposing.

> I would prefer this naming:
> end -> slow_path_end // the end for taking a slow path; either due to
> sampling or refilling
> actual_end -> allocation_end // the end for allocations
> slow_path_end -> last_slow_path_end // last address for slow_path_end (as
> opposed to allocation_end)
> hard_end -> reserved_end // the end of the reserved space of the TLAB
> About setting things in the getter... that still seems like a very
> unpleasant thing to me. It would be better to inspect the call hierarchy
> and explicitly update the ends where they need updating, and assert in the
> getter that they are in sync, rather than implicitly setting various ends
> as a surprising side effect in a getter. It looks like the call hierarchy
> is very small. With my new naming convention, reserved_end() would
> presumably return _allocation_end + alignment_reserve(), and have an assert
> checking that _allocation_end == _last_slow_path_allocation_end,
> complaining that this invariant must hold, and that a caller to this
> function, such as make_parsable(), must first explicitly synchronize the
> ends as required, to honor that invariant.

I've renamed the variables to how you preferred it except for the _end one.
I did:

The reason is that the architecture dependent code use the thread.hpp API
and it already has tlab included into the name so it becomes
tlab_current_end (which is better that tlab_current_tlab_end in my opinion).

I also moved the update into a separate method with a TODO that says to
remove it when FastTLABRefill is deprecated

> Not sure it's better but before updating the webrev, I wanted to try
>> to get input/consensus :)
>> (Note hard_end was always further off than end).
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmti.xml:
>>> 10357       <capabilityfield id="can_sample_heap" since="9">
>>> 10358         <description>
>>> 10359           Can sample the heap.
>>> 10360           If this capability is enabled then the heap sampling
>>> methods
>>> can be called.
>>> 10361         </description>
>>> 10362       </capabilityfield>
>>> Looks like this capability should not be "since 9" if it gets integrated
>>> now.
>> Updated now to 11, crossing my fingers :)
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/heapMonitoring.cpp:
>>>   448       if (is_alive->do_object_b(value)) {
>>>   449         // Update the oop to point to the new object if it is still
>>> alive.
>>>   450         f->do_oop(&(trace.obj));
>>>   451
>>>   452         // Copy the old trace, if it is still live.
>>>   453         _allocated_traces->at_put(curr_pos++, trace);
>>>   454
>>>   455         // Store the live trace in a cache, to be served up on
>>> /heapz.
>>>   456         _traces_on_last_full_gc->append(trace);
>>>   457
>>>   458         count++;
>>>   459       } else {
>>>   460         // If the old trace is no longer live, add it to the list
>>> of
>>>   461         // recently collected garbage.
>>>   462         store_garbage_trace(trace);
>>>   463       }
>>> In the case where the oop was not live, I would like it to be explicitly
>>> cleared.
>> Done I think how you wanted it. Let me know because I'm not familiar
>> with the RootAccess API. I'm unclear if I'm doing this right or not so
>> reviews of these parts are highly appreciated. Robbin had talked of
>> perhaps later pushing this all into a OopStorage, should I do this now
>> do you think? Or can that wait a second webrev later down the road?
> I think using handles can and should be done later. You can use the Access
> API now.
> I noticed that you are missing an #include "oops/access.inline.hpp" in
> your heapMonitoring.cpp file.
The missing header is there for me so I don't know, I made sure it is
present in the latest webrev. Sorry about that.

> + Did I clear it the way you wanted me to or were you thinking of
>> something else?
> That is precisely how I wanted it to be cleared. Thanks.
> + Final question here, seems like if I were to want to not do the
>> f->do_oop directly on the trace.obj, I'd need to do something like:
>>     f->do_oop(&value);
>>     ...
>>     trace->store_oop(value);
>> to update the oop internally. Is that right/is that one of the
>> advantages of going to the Oopstorage sooner than later?
> I think you really want to do the do_oop on the root directly. Is there a
> particular reason why you would not want to do that?
> Otherwise, yes - the benefit with using the handle approach is that you do
> not need to call do_oop explicitly in your code.
There is no reason except that now we have a load_oop and a get_oop_addr, I
was not sure what you would think of that.

>> Also I see a lot of concurrent-looking use of the following field:
>>>   267   volatile bool _initialized;
>>> Please note that the "volatile" qualifier does not help with reordering
>>> here. Reordering between volatile and non-volatile fields is completely
>>> free
>>> for both compiler and hardware, except for windows with MSVC, where
>>> volatile
>>> semantics is defined to use acquire/release semantics, and the hardware
>>> is
>>> TSO. But for the general case, I would expect this field to be stored
>>> with
>>> OrderAccess::release_store and loaded with OrderAccess::load_acquire.
>>> Otherwise it is not thread safe.
>> Because everything is behind a mutex, I wasn't really worried about
>> this. I have a test that has multiple threads trying to hit this
>> corner case and it passes.
>> However, to be paranoid, I updated it to using the OrderAccess API
>> now, thanks! Let me know what you think there too!
> If it is indeed always supposed to be read and written under a mutex, then
> I would strongly prefer to have it accessed as a normal non-volatile
> member, and have an assertion that given lock is held or we are in a
> safepoint, as we do in many other places. Something like this:
> assert(HeapMonitorStorage_lock->owned_by_self() ||
> (SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint() && Thread::current()->is_VM_thread()),
> "this should not be accessed concurrently");
> It would be confusing to people reading the code if there are uses of
> OrderAccess that are actually always protected under a mutex.
Thank you for the exact example to be put in the code! I put it around each
access/assignment of the _initialized method and found one case where yes
you can touch it and not have the lock. It actually is "ok" because you
don't act on the storage until later and only when you really want to
modify the storage (see the object_alloc_do_sample method which calls the
add_trace method).

But, because of this, I'm going to put the OrderAccess here, I'll do some
performance numbers later and if there are issues, I might add a "unsafe"
read and a "safe" one to make it explicit to the reader. But I don't think
it will come to that.

> As a kind of meta comment, I wonder if it would make sense to add sampling
>>> for non-TLAB allocations. Seems like if someone is rapidly allocating a
>>> whole bunch of 1 MB objects that never fit in a TLAB, I might still be
>>> interested in seeing that in my traces, and not get surprised that the
>>> allocation rate is very high yet not showing up in any profiles.
>>> That is handled by the handle_sample where you wanted me to put a
>> UseTlab because you hit that case if the allocation is too big.
> I see. It was not obvious to me that non-TLAB sampling is done in the TLAB
> class. That seems like an abstraction crime.
> What I wanted in my previous comment was that we do not call into the TLAB
> when we are not using TLABs. If there is sampling logic in the TLAB that is
> used for something else than TLABs, then it seems like that logic simply
> does not belong inside of the TLAB. It should be moved out of the TLAB, and
> instead have the TLAB call this common abstraction that makes sense.
So in the incremental version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.07_08/, this is still a
"crime". The reason is that the system has to have the bytes_until_sample
on a per-thread level and it made "sense" to have it with the TLAB
implementation. Also, I was not sure how people felt about adding something
to the thread instance instead.

Do you think it fits better at the Thread level? I can see how difficult it
is to make it happen there and add some logic there. Let me know what you

> Hope I have answered your questions and that my feedback makes sense to
> you.
You have and thank you for them, I think we are getting to a cleaner
implementation and things are getting better and more readable :)

Thanks for your help!

> Thanks,
> /Erik
> I double checked by changing the test
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.05a/raw_
>> files/new/test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/HeapMonito
>> r/MyPackage/HeapMonitorStatObjectCorrectnessTest.java
>> to use a smaller Tlab (2048) and made the object bigger and it goes
>> through that and passes.
>> Thanks again for your review and I look forward to your pointers for
>> the questions I now have raised!
>> Jc
>> Thanks,
>>> /Erik
>>> On 2018-01-26 06:45, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>> Thanks Robbin for the reviews :)
>>>> The new full webrev is here:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.03/
>>>> The incremental webrev is here:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8171119/webrev.02_03/
>>>> I inlined my answers:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Robbin Ehn <robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi JC, great to see another revision!
>>>>> ####
>>>>> heapMonitoring.cpp
>>>>> StackTraceData should not contain the oop for 'safety' reasons.
>>>>> When StackTraceData is moved from _allocated_traces:
>>>>> L452 store_garbage_trace(trace);
>>>>> it contains a dead oop.
>>>>> _allocated_traces could instead be a tupel of oop and StackTraceData
>>>>> thus
>>>>> dead oops are not kept.
>>>> Done I used inheritance to make the copier work regardless but the
>>>> idea is the same.
>>>> You should use the new Access API for loading the oop, something like
>>>>> this:
>>>>> RootAccess<ON_PHANTOM_OOP_REF | AS_NO_KEEPALIVE>::load(...)
>>>>> I don't think you need to use Access API for clearing the oop, but it
>>>>> would
>>>>> look nicer. And you shouldn't probably be using:
>>>>> Universe::heap()->is_in_reserved(value)
>>>> I am unfamiliar with this but I think I did do it like you wanted me
>>>> to (all tests pass so that's a start). I'm not sure how to clear the
>>>> oop exactly, is there somewhere that does that, which I can use to do
>>>> the same?
>>>> I removed the is_in_reserved, this came from our internal version, I
>>>> don't know why it was there but my tests work without so I removed it
>>>> :)
>>>> The lock:
>>>>> L424   MutexLocker mu(HeapMonitorStorage_lock);
>>>>> Is not needed as far as I can see.
>>>>> weak_oops_do is called in a safepoint, no TLAB allocation can happen
>>>>> and
>>>>> JVMTI thread can't access these data-structures. Is there something
>>>>> more
>>>>> to
>>>>> this lock that I'm missing?
>>>> Since a thread can call the JVMTI getLiveTraces (or any of the other
>>>> ones), it can get to the point of trying to copying the
>>>> _allocated_traces. I imagine it is possible that this is happening
>>>> during a GC or that it can be started and a GC happens afterwards.
>>>> Therefore, it seems to me that you want this protected, no?
>>>> ####
>>>>> You have 6 files without any changes in them (any more):
>>>>> g1CollectedHeap.cpp
>>>>> psMarkSweep.cpp
>>>>> psParallelCompact.cpp
>>>>> genCollectedHeap.cpp
>>>>> referenceProcessor.cpp
>>>>> thread.hpp
>>>>> Done.
>>>> ####
>>>>> I have not looked closely, but is it possible to hide heap sampling in
>>>>> AllocTracer ? (with some minor changes to the AllocTracer API)
>>>>> I am imagining that you are saying to move the code that does the
>>>> sampling code (change the tlab end, do the call to HeapMonitoring,
>>>> etc.) into the AllocTracer code itself? I think that is right and I'll
>>>> look if that is possible and prepare a webrev to show what would be
>>>> needed to make that happen.
>>>> ####
>>>>> Minor nit, when declaring pointer there is a little mix of having the
>>>>> pointer adjacent by type name and data name. (Most hotspot code is by
>>>>> type
>>>>> name)
>>>>> E.g.
>>>>> heapMonitoring.cpp:711     jvmtiStackTrace *trace = ....
>>>>> heapMonitoring.cpp:733         Method* m = vfst.method();
>>>>> (not just this file)
>>>>> Done!
>>>> ####
>>>>> HeapMonitorThreadOnOffTest.java:77
>>>>> I would make g_tmp volatile, otherwise the assignment in loop may
>>>>> theoretical be skipped.
>>>>> Also done!
>>>> Thanks again!
>>>> Jc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20180212/870b54d3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list