On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:54:46 GMT, Yi Yang <yy...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> ### Motivation and proposal
>> Hi, heap dump brings about pauses for application's execution(STW), this is
>> a well-known pain. JDK-8252842 have added parallel support to heapdump in an
>> attempt to alleviate this issue. However, all concurrent threads
>> competitively write heap data to the same file, and more memory is required
>> to maintain the concurrent buffer queue. In experiments, we did not feel a
>> significant performance improvement from that.
>>
>> The minor-pause solution, which is presented in this PR, is a two-phase
>> segmented heap dump:
>>
>> - Phase 1(STW): Concurrent threads directly write data to multiple heap
>> files.
>> - Phase 2(Non-STW): Merge multiple heap files into one complete heap dump
>> file. This process can happen outside safepoint.
>>
>> Now concurrent worker threads are not required to maintain a buffer queue,
>> which would result in more memory overhead, nor do they need to compete for
>> locks. The changes in the overall design are as follows:
>>
>> 
>> <p align="center">Fig1. Before</p>
>>
>> 
>> <p align="center">Fig2. After this patch</p>
>>
>> ### Performance evaluation
>> | memory | numOfThread | CompressionMode | STW | Total |
>> | -------| ----------- | --------------- | --- | ---- |
>> | 8g | 1 T | N | 15.612 | 15.612 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | N | 2.561725 | 14.498 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | C1 | 2.3084878 | 14.198 |
>> | 8g | 32 T | C2 | 10.9355128 | 21.882 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | N | 2.6790452 | 14.012 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | C1 | 2.3044796 | 3.589 |
>> | 8g | 96 T | C2 | 9.7585151 | 20.219 |
>> | 16g | 1 T | N | 26.278 | 26.278 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | N | 5.231374 | 26.417 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | C1 | 5.6946983 | 6.538 |
>> | 16g | 32 T | C2 | 21.8211105 | 41.133 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | N | 6.2445556 | 27.141 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | C1 | 4.6007096 | 6.259 |
>> | 16g | 96 T | C2 | 19.2965783 | 39.007 |
>> | 32g | 1 T | N | 48.149 | 48.149 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | N | 10.7734677 | 61.643 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | C1 | 10.1642097 | 10.903 |
>> | 32g | 32 T | C2 | 43.8407607 | 88.152 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | N | 13.1522042 | 61.432 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | C1 | 9.0954641 | 9.885 |
>> | 32g | 96 T | C2 | 38.9900931 | 80.574 |
>> | 64g | 1 T | N | 100.583 | 100.583 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | N | 20.9233744 | 134.701 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | C1 | 18.5023784 | 19.358 |
>> | 64g | 32 T | C2 | 86.4748377 | 172.707 |
>> | 64g | 96 T | N | 26.7374116 | 126.08 |
>> | 64g | ...
>
> Yi Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
> commits since the last revision:
>
> - fix SA thread name
> - sa AttachListenerThread counterpart
Changes requested by cjplummer (Reviewer).
src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/Threads.java line
169:
> 167: /** NOTE: this returns objects of type JavaThread, CompilerThread,
> 168: JvmtiAgentThread, NotificationThread, AttachListenerThread,
> 169: MonitorDeflationThread and ServiceThread. Most operations
StringDedupThread was previously missed from this comment. Can you fix this
also?
I think the "The latter four are subclasses of the former" comment should stay
since all the text the follows relates to this. I just needs to be correct to
say "seven" instead of "four".
src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/Threads.java line
175:
> 173: changed from the definition in the VM (which returns true for
> 174: all of these thread types) to return true for JavaThreads and
> 175: false for the five subclasses. FIXME: should reconsider the
"five" -> "seven"
src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/Threads.java line
199:
> 197: } catch (Exception e) {
> 198: throw new RuntimeException("Unable to deduce type of thread
> from address " + threadAddr +
> 199: " (expected type JavaThread, CompilerThread,
> MonitorDeflationThread, AttachListenerThread, ServiceThread or
> JvmtiAgentThread)", e);
Add StringDedupThread thread.
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13667#pullrequestreview-1533209867
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13667#discussion_r1265627589
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13667#discussion_r1265629434
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13667#discussion_r1265638775
