RFR(m): 8214271: Fast primitive to wake many threads
robbin.ehn at oracle.com
Mon Dec 17 10:39:01 UTC 2018
On 11/26/18 7:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Robbin,
> On 24/11/2018 2:55 am, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Forgot RFR in subject.
> Yep and now you have two different review threads happening in parallel
> unfortunately :(
> - src/hotspot/share/utilities/waitBarrier.hpp
> I'm studying just the WaitBarrierType API. Is this inherently tied to safepoint
> usage or intended as a general synchronization tool? As a general tool the API
> does not have clear semantics on how it should be used:
There is two potential uses-cases in G1, which might require some changes.
> - How do you communicate the current tag between the arming thread and the
> waiting threads? There would seem to be inherent races between arm(tag) and
> wait(tag) unless access to the tag itself is synchronized via another mechanism.
As seen in gtest:
- arm tag
- publish tag
> - What happens if wake() is called before disarm()? Should it be disallowed?
> (For other readers disarm() and wake() are distinct operations so that they fit
> better into the existing safepoint protocol which disarms the safepoint polling
> page at one spot and wakes blocked threads at another.)
Yes, wake() have no effect if you have not disarmed.
There are asserts checking this.
> - Should there be constraints that the same thread must arm/disarm/wake? It
> doesn't really make sense to allow these operations to happen in arbitrary order
> from multiple threads.
Maybe, *thinking* if there is nice way to get the arming/waking thread into an
> The semantics for re-arming with the same tag should be clearly set out not
> "implementation-defined". This should probably be a usage error IMHO - but it
> comes back to how the tag is expected to be used.
If you have a way to detect that all threads have left the waitbarrier, there is
no problem with re-using the same tag. So yes, re-arming before that with the
same tag should be an error. But since the waitbarrier can't tell the difference
and do not know which tag it was last armed for I have no assert.
> As Andrew mentioned there needs to be documentation regarding spurious wakeups
> or other "interruptions" at the API level. And I assume a blocked wait() only
> ever returns in response to a wake().
Yes, if it's disarmed before. Since these are handled internally there are no
spurious wakeups, not sure why we want to document that, except inside the
implementation. E.g. semaphore.hpp does not document that it do not have it.
> Nothwithstanding clarification of the above may I suggest the following rewrite
> of the API documentation for further clarity:
> /* Platform independent WaitBarrier API.
> An armed WaitBarrier prevents threads from advancing until the
> barrier is disarmed and the waiting threads woken. The barrier is
> armed by setting a non-zero value - the tag.
> Expected Usage:
> - Arming thread:
> tag = ...; // non-zero value
> - After arm(tag) returns any thread calling wait(tag) will block
> - After disarm() returns any subsequent calls to wait(tag) will not block
> - After wake() returns all blocked threads are unblocked and eligible to
> execute again
> - After calling disarm() and wake() the barrier is ready to be re-armed
> with a new tag
> - Waiting threads
> wait(tag); // don't execute following code unless 'safe'
> - A call to wait(tag) will block if the barrier is armed with the value
> 'tag'; else it will return immediately.
> - A blocked thread is eligible to execute again once the barrier is
> disarmed and wake() has been called.
> A primary goal of the WaitBarrier implementation is to wake all waiting
> threads as fast, and as concurrently, as possible.
Updated, added <publish tag> after barrier.arm(tag);
> Looking at the "implementation" in this file I'm unclear on the way the Linux
> specialization is being handled here. Why do we need the template? Can't this
> just be done the same way we do Semaphore?
Because the gtest can test all implementations available on that platform.
Meaning I can test both implementation locally and compare performance etc..
I'll post one update after I sorted out the other review parts also.
> More to follow.
>> On 2018-11-23 17:51, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>> Hi all, please review.
>>> When a safepoint is ended we need a way to get back to 100% utilization as fast
>>> as possible. 100% utilization means no idle cpu in the system if there is a
>>> JavaThread that could be executed. The traditional ways to wake many, e.g.
>>> semaphore, pthread_cond, is not implemented with a single syscall instead they
>>> typical do one syscall per thread to wake.
>>> This change-set contains that primitive, the WaitBarrier, and a gtest for it.
>>> No actual users, which is in coming patches.
>>> The WaitBarrier solves by doing a cooperative semaphore posting, threads woken
>>> will also post. On Linux we can instead directly use a futex and with one
>>> syscall wake all. Depending on how many threads and cpus the performance vary,
>>> but a good utilization of the machine, just on the edge of saturated, the
>>> time to reach 100% utilization is around 3 times faster with the WaitBarrier
>>> (where futex is faster than semaphore).
>>> Passes 100 iterations of gtest on our platforms, both fastdebug and release.
>>> And have been stable when used in safepoints (t1-8) (coming patches).
>>> Thanks, Robbin
More information about the hotspot-dev