RFC: Parallel full collection for G1
jwha at google.com
Thu Nov 17 18:38:41 UTC 2016
I also vote for the 2nd approach. Full GC is for the worst case, and this
approach will guarantee the correctness even when some bug was introduced
on concurrent phases.
Denser compaction after full GC is also good for the worst case.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Johansson <
stefan.johansson at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-09 16:15, Erik Helin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> currently G1 Full GC is very slow as it is done serially. In some cases
>> this might not be optimal.
>> Although the concept is pretty well known, there are differences in how
>> well a solution would fit with the rest of the G1 code. The most direct
>> approach for implementing a parallel full GC for G1 is to create a parallel
>> version based on the closures used for the "Serial" closures. Another
>> approach for the marking phase would be to build upon the concurrent
>> marking code, essentially running a concurrent mark in the foreground.
>> These two approaches have different advantages:
>> - piggybacking on an already running concurrent mark is preferable when
>> G1 is about to encounter a concurrent mode failure. Typically a
>> concurrent mark is about to be done, unless the dynamic IHOP
>> predictions were completely off. If so, then most of the marking work
>> is already done. This could save significant amount of time in the
>> following compaction phase of that full GC.
>> From this point on, G1 Full GC might either compact in-place as
>> before, or do an evacuating collection if or as soon as there is a
>> suitable reserve of regions.
>> - parallelizing the closures used within the "MarkSweep framework" will
>> result in a parallel full GC that can handle the worst case
>> from-scratch Full GC better. I.e. even though this algorithm will
>> have to redo marking in a STW pause, it will get the most precise
>> liveness information and so will be able to compact the heap more
>> densely. This approach can also handle the case when G1 is
>> completely out of regions.
> I have started looking at this approach. The project is just ramping up
> and I'm still in the investigation phase. I'll get back with more
> information once I have a worked through project plan and a JEP.
>> Both approaches will most likely also tie into the idea of rebuilding
>> remembered sets concurrently. Any kind of full GC implementation need to
>> rebuild all the remembered sets, unless the non-essential remembered sets
>> can be rebuilt during concurrent phase. Since after a full GC G1 will
>> resume doing young collections, the remembered sets can be rebuilt later.
>> Even though a full collection still is a failure mode for G1, having a
>> parallel version will make the impact less dramatic if it happens.
Jungwoo Ha | Java Platform Team | jwha at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev