On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I >> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated >> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see >> previous discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085. >> >> --------------- >> >> This RFE adds the option to trim the Glibc heap periodically. This can >> recover a significant memory footprint if the VM process suffers from >> high-but-rare malloc spikes. It does not matter who causes the spikes: the >> JDK or customer code running in the JVM process. >> >> ### Background: >> >> The Glibc is reluctant to return memory to the OS. Temporary malloc spikes >> often carry over as permanent RSS increase. Note that C-heap retention is >> difficult to observe. Since it is freed memory, it won't appear in NMT; it >> is just a part of RSS. >> >> This is, effectively, caching - a performance tradeoff by the glibc. It >> makes a lot of sense with applications that cause high traffic on the >> C-heap. The JVM, however, clusters allocations and often rolls its own >> memory management based on virtual memory for many of its use cases. >> >> To manually trim the C-heap, Glibc exposes `malloc_trim(3)`. With JDK 18 >> [2], we added a new jcmd command to *manually* trim the C-heap on Linux >> (`jcmd System.trim_native_heap`). We then observed customers running this >> command periodically to slim down process sizes of container-bound jvms. >> That is cumbersome, and the JVM can do this a lot better - among other >> things because it knows best when *not* to trim. >> >> #### GLIBC internals >> >> The following information I took from the glibc source code and >> experimenting. >> >> ##### Why do we need to trim manually? Does the Glibc not trim on free? >> >> Upon `free()`, glibc may return memory to the OS if: >> - the returned block was mmap'ed >> - the returned block was not added to tcache or to fastbins >> - the returned block, possibly merged with its two immediate neighbors, had >> they been free, is larger than FASTBIN_CONSOLIDATION_THRESHOLD (64K) - in >> that case: >> a) for the main arena, glibc attempts to lower the brk() >> b) for mmap-ed heaps, glibc attempts to completely unmap or shrink the >> heap. >> In both cases, (a) and (b), only the top portion of the heap is reclaimed. >> "Holes" in the middle of other in-use chunks are not reclaimed. >> >> So: glibc *may* automatically reclaim memory. In normal configurations, with >> typical C-heap allocation granularity, it is unlikely. >> >> To increase the ... > > Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 32 additional > commits since the last revision: > > - Make test spikes more pronounced > - Dont query procfs if logging is off > - rename logtag again > - When probing for safepoint end, use the smaller of (interval, 250ms) > - Remove TrimNativeHeap and expand TrimNativeHeapInterval > - Improve comments for non-supportive platforms > - Aleksey cosmetics > - suspend count return 16 bits > - Fix linker errors > - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8293114-JVM-should-trim-the-native-heap > - ... and 22 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/061a10c7...15566761 src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line 139: > 137: double t2 = now(); > 138: if (sc.after != SIZE_MAX) { > 139: const size_t delta = sc.after < sc.before ? (sc.before - > sc.after) : (sc.after - sc.before); @tstuefe under what situations can `sc.after` be more than `sc.before` after trimming? Is it to handle the case where memory allocations happened in-between the malloc_trim() and the calls to get process memory? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14781#discussion_r1258323486
