RFR(S): 8027593: performance drop with constrained codecache starting with hs25 b111
chris.plummer at oracle.com
Tue Nov 5 17:59:29 PST 2013
I applied your patch and got some new numbers. Performance is now even
better than it was with b110. See the chart I added to the bug.
On 11/5/13 6:44 AM, Albert Noll wrote:
> could I get reviews for this small patch?
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027593
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8027593/webrev.00/
> Problem: The implementation of the sweeper (8020151) causes a
> performance regression for small code cache sizes. There are two
> issues that cause this regression:
> 1) NmethodSweepFraction is only adjusted according to the
> ReservedCodecacheSize if TieredCompilation is enabled. As a result,
> NmethodSweepFraction remains 16 (if TieredCompilation is not used).
> This is way too large for small code cache sizes (e.g., <5m).
> 2) _request_mark_phase (sweeper.cpp) is initialized to false. As a
> result, mark_active_nmethods() did not set _invocations and _current,
> which results in not invoking the sweeper (calling sweep_code_cache())
> at all. When TieredCompilation is enabled this was not an issue, since
> NmethodSweeper::notify() (which sets _request_mark_phase) is called
> much more frequently.
> Solution: 1) Move setting of NmethodSweepFraction so that it is always
> Solution: 2) Remove need_marking_phase(), request_nmethod_marking(),
> and reset_nmetod_marking().
> I think that these checks are not needed since
> 8020151, since we do stack scanning of
> active nmethods irrespective of the value of what
> need_marking_phase() returns. Since
> the patch removes need_marking_phase() printing out
> the warning (line 327 in
> sweeper.cpp) is incorrect, i.e., we continue to
> invoke the sweeper. I removed the warning
> and the associated code.
> Also, I think that we can either remove -XX:MethodFlushing or
> -XX:UseCodeCacheFlushing. Since 8020151, one of them is redundant and
> can be removed. I am not quite sure if we should do that now so it is
> not included in the patch.
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027593 also shows a
> performance evaluation.
> Many thanks for looking at the patch.
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev