Review Request: UseNUMAInterleaving

Igor Veresov igor.veresov at oracle.com
Wed Aug 17 16:38:17 PDT 2011


On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> Igor --
> 
> I am back from vacation, starting to address your comments...
> Regarding your comment #1 below.
> 
> You mention "future planned NUMA-aware implementations of GCs". How
> do these future planned NUMA-aware implementations of GCs differ from
> today's NUMA-aware GCs? My understanding of the current GCs use of
> NUMA is that they support numa_global (interleaved) and numa_local
> (memory pinned to one numa node).
> 
> In the currently released JVMs on Windows OSes, neither numa_local nor
> numa_global is implemented. The implementation I proposed in the
> patch maps both numa_local and numa_global requests to numa_global (on
> Windows). The reasons for this were:
> 
>  * it was very difficult (if not impossible) to implement the JVM's
>  current numa_local semantics on Windows
It's hard to realize numa_local semantics if you want to minimize the number of memory segments per lgroup. If you're prepared (like in your patch) to have hundreds of thousands of segments, this is not a problem and it's quite easily implementable. The only problem there would that such a huge number of segments will penalize page fault handling a lot. 
> * in the benchmarks we measured, the extra performance that was
>  left on the table by doing only numa_global and not doing
>  numa_local was only a few percent.
> 
Hm, I have trouble believing that. How did you get such results? What were the experiments?

> Are you saying that in the future numa_local will be supported on
> Windows, and that even then it might still be advantageous to have a
> flag (UseNUMAInterleaving) which instead maps all the regions to
> numa_global? Should this flag be available on all OSes?
> 
Basically yes. And like Ramki said it would be nice to support that on other OSes, so that we could at least get interleaving for the collectors that do no explicitly support NUMA. I guess I didn't do that before because the functionality is equivalent to just saying for example on Linux "numactl -i all java <flags>", but since you can't do that on windows (as far as I can see) we could support this flag on unixes as well. Which is fairly easy to do, you just have to call os::numa_make_global() for a freshly reserved region.

igor
> -- Tom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Igor Veresov [mailto:igor.veresov at oracle.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:43 PM
> > To: hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net (mailto:hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net); Deneau, Tom
> > Subject: Re: Review Request: UseNUMAInterleaving
> > 
> > Hi, Tom!
> > 
> > Sorry it took me so long to get to that.
> > 
> > 1. I don't think the new version of flag usage is prudent. The reason I
> > proposed to introduce a new flag for interleaving is that it would make
> > life easier in the future when the proper NUMA-aware implementation of
> > GCs are added (G1 would be the most probable candidate). I would propose
> > to still have UseNUMAInterleaving flag.
> > 
> > The usage would be as follows:
> > - If UseNUMA is specified on Windows that would turn UseNUMAInterleaving
> > (for the time being, and that behavior would change in the future).
> > - If UseNUMAInterleaving is specified on the command line, you just do
> > the interleaving. If you don't add this flag now, you'll have to do that
> > anyway as soon as NUMA-aware GCs start supporting windows.
> > 
> > 
> > igor
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/26/11 4:37 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> > > I have incorporated the change suggested by Paul Hohensee to just use
> > the existing UseNUMA flag rather than introduce a new flag. Please let me
> > know when you think this will be able to be checked in...
> > > 
> > > The new webrev is at
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tdeneau/UseNUMAInterleaving/webrev.02/
> > > 
> > > -- Tom Deneau, AMD




More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list