Re: Value types - compatibility with existing “value objects”

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 02:02:37 UTC 2015


I'm not sure that's true - what if right before the stack is expanded some
mutation is performed that isn't undone upon SOE? I'd say both OOME and SOE
are the types of "async" exceptions that are hard to recover from.

I do, however, think it's easier to track down the cause of SOE than a heap
OOME since you have one call stack to inspect whereas you may hit a heap
OOME purely being a victim of someone else polluting it.

Sent from my phone
On Jan 8, 2015 8:57 PM, "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 01/08/2015 06:37 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:29 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks John.  I read that paragraph just now and do see mention of
>>> spilling to heap.  However, the bulk of the paragraph talks about the
>>> intended use of value types, which I fully agree with.  The register file
>>> is just an example of how one can best achieve performance by scalarizing
>>> the value type across registers - great, love it! However, I don't quite
>>> understand why you need to spill to heap and not restrict it to stack
>>> only.  I know this is probably discussing a pathological case as I'd
>>> imagine the threshold you pick will not be hit by people actually writing
>>> performant code, so perhaps we don't need to discuss it at length.
>>> In terms of freedom of implementation,  another thing I highly agree
>>> with.  However, I'd like to have a bit more control in some cases.  There
>>> are things the VM does that either I can't do reasonably or at all and I
>>> appreciate that (e.g. the various JIT optimizations around devirtualization
>>> as just one example).  But, for some things I'd like to have more say :).
>>> Storage is one of them.  I'm sure you guys know that there are people out
>>> there that either avoid the GC like a plague and/or take their data
>>> offheap.  Using stack for temps is almost always going to be preferred over
>>> heap.  Anything that we can do to facilitate that would be fantastic.
>>> Automatic storage is great when it's warranted, but it's a big hammer in
>>> some situations.
>>>
>>> P.S. I think GC still doesn't sit well with certain groups of people,
>>> thus some excitement about new languages like Rust and criticism of others
>>> (e.g. Go, D) that have it.  Obviously I'm not saying java needs to abandon
>>> it, but there are folks building middleware/infra components where they'd
>>> like better facilities.
>>>
>>>  Thanks for the good comments, Vitaly.  Yes, GC is a key value-add, and
>> requires a whole team to keep fresh.
>>
>> Indeed we are looking at managing stack more cleverly also.  A warning
>> note:  If you OOME by moving stuff onto stack, you increase the frequency
>> of SOE!
>>
>
> Worth mentioning that SOE is infinitely more recoverable than heap OOME.
> In the latter case (especially with complex systems, where the risk is
> ironically even higher of it happening) there's often not much you can do
> other than kill off the JVM and try again.  But if you run out of stack,
> everything should unwind in a very predictable (and fast) manner.  You
> could even automatically rebuild your thread pools with larger stack sizes
> fairly easily.
>
> --
> - DML
>


More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list