RFR(S): 8015237: Parallelize string table scanning during strong root processing
stefan.karlsson at oracle.com
Wed May 29 07:12:30 UTC 2013
On 05/29/2013 12:53 AM, John Cuthbertson wrote:
> Hi Per,
> Thanks for looking at the code. Replies inline...
> On 5/28/2013 1:15 AM, Per Lidén wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> On 2013-05-25 00:19, John Cuthbertson wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> Can I have a couple of reviewers look over these changes - the webrev
>>> is: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~johnc/8015237/webrev.0/
>>> On some workloads we are seeing that the scan of the intern string
>>> (among others) can sometimes take quite a while. This showed up on some
>>> FMW workloads with G1 where the scan of the string table dominated the
>>> pause time for some pauses. G1 was particularly affected since it
>>> doesn't do class unloading (and hence pruning of the string table)
>>> except at full GCs. The solution was to change the string table from
>>> being considered a single root task and treat similarly to the Java
>>> thread stacks: each GC worker claims a given number of buckets and
>>> the entries in those buckets.
>> A few minor comments/questions:
>> * How about calculating ClaimChunkSize based on number of buckets
>> that fit into a cacheline? Looking at all the buckets you already got
>> nicely cached seems tempting. Something like:
>> ClaimChunkSize = X * DEFAULT_CACHE_LINE_SIZE /
>> Where e.g. X=3 would yield 24 buckets for a release build on x86_64.
>> Doing 20 (two and a half cachelines) means you would skip buckets you
>> most likely have nicely cached.
> I like this idea.
Don't you have to cache align the buckets array to get this to work well?
>> * There's a debug printout/comment leftover in
> Oops. It was to verify the claiming and check the distribution.
>> * It seems that the worker_id argument passed all the way to
>> possibly_parallel_oops_do() could be removed, since it's never used.
> See my response to Stefan. This is the 3rd time I've had to do such a
> change (for various reasons). I'll remove it this time but if I have
> to add it for something else in the future I'll be more insistent that
> it stays then.
>> * Maybe factor out the inner loop and share that between
>> possibly_parallel_oops_do() and oops_do()?
> See my response to Thomas.
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev