Hi Viktor,
may I add one option to your evaluation?
@@ -1506,14 +1506,15 @@ public ConditionObject() { }
private void doSignal(ConditionNode first, boolean all) {
while (first != null) {
ConditionNode next = first.nextWaiter;
if ((firstWaiter = next) == null)
lastWaiter = null;
if ((first.getAndUnsetStatus(COND) & COND) != 0) {
enqueue(first);
+ first.nextWaiter = null; // GC-friendly
if (!all)
break;
}
first = next;
}
}
(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer line numbers as in gitlab current master)
This variant takes care about race conditions on cancellation
(unlinkCancelledWaiters() needs 'nextWaiter'), as thanks to
"getAndUnsetStatus(COND) & COND) != 0" only alternatively/once executed.
So this option is definitively better / more robust than my first one 🙂
Best regards
Frank
Am 19.02.2024 um 12:41 schrieb Viktor Klang:
Hi Frank,
We'll see what the option are. 🙂
Cheers,
√
*
*
*Viktor Klang*
Software Architect, Java Platform Group
Oracle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Frank Kretschmer <frank.kretsch...@gmx.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, 18 February 2024 15:36
*To:* Jaikiran Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com>; Viktor Klang
<viktor.kl...@oracle.com>; Java Core Libs <core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net>
*Subject:* [External] : Re: OpenJDK 17: Loitering
AbstractQueuedSynchronizer$ConditionNode instances (also on latest
master branch) [JDK-8325754]
Hello Jaikiran, hello Viktor,
in the meantime, I've seen that the JBS issue has been assigned to
Viktor Klang. @Viktor: I totally agree with your comment that the
proposed solution may not be the best possible option, and that
further explorations were required.
My intention to propose unlinking ConditionNodes by null'ing their
‘nextWaiter’ reference was just to verify that the chain of
‘nextWaiter’ references leads to the observed garbage collection
behavior, and that the GC is able to collect the nodes during minor /
young collections if the references are cleaned in time.
I checked also a few other variants (null'ing the ‘nextWaiter’
reference at the end of all await...() methods in ConditionObject, or
in/just before enqueue()), but at the end of the day, I felt that
null'ing it in doSignal() explains what I want to show the easiest. On
the other hand, the other options could be better in order to avoid
race conditions with canceled nodes.
For sure there are many other options that I am not aware of, so
please take my proposal just as an example.
Looking forward to your explorations.
Best regards
Frank
Am 14.02.2024 um 07:43 schrieb Jaikiran Pai:
Hello Frank,
I see that a JBS issue has been created for this same issue
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325754
<https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325754>.
I don't have enough knowledge of this area and haven't reviewed this
part of the code in detail to see if there are any obvious issues
with what you are proposing as a solution. Since there's now a JBS
issue created for this and you seem to have done enough investigation
and work on this one already, would you be interested in creating a
pull request against the https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjdk/jdk__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!NtWokgpYjFyT0Gdq0NiTif6NvtYcNz39rzE7qzmJsQi5X_KwWSMhmV16WfkPx_5ByfNe4J-pgT8gyqCLKofbXZ9rkczUDg$>
repo with this proposed change? (you'll have to sign a OCA). This
guide https://openjdk.org/guide/ <https://openjdk.org/guide/> should
help you get started. It can then go through the usual reviews that a
bug fix/enhancement goes through.
-Jaikiran
On 11/02/24 7:27 pm, Frank Kretschmer wrote:
Hello Core-Libs-Dev team,
may I ask you about your opinion about a tiny one-liner change in
AbstractQueuedSynchronizer, just as a suggestion how to make
ConditionObjects / Nodes even more garbage collector friendly?
Checked out
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/jdk-17%2B35/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/jdk-17*2B35/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java__;JQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!NtWokgpYjFyT0Gdq0NiTif6NvtYcNz39rzE7qzmJsQi5X_KwWSMhmV16WfkPx_5ByfNe4J-pgT8gyqCLKofbXZ8EWBUt0w$>
(the same on master branch with different line numbers near to line
1506):
@@ -1431,40 +1431,41 @@ public abstract class AbstractQueuedSynchronizer
public class ConditionObject implements Condition,
java.io.Serializable {
// ...
private void doSignal(ConditionNode first, boolean all) {
while (first != null) {
ConditionNode next = first.nextWaiter;
+ first.nextWaiter = null; // GC-friendly: avoid
chains of dead ConditionNodes
if ((firstWaiter = next) == null)
lastWaiter = null;
if ((first.getAndUnsetStatus(COND) & COND) != 0) {
enqueue(first);
// ...
By setting the nextWaiter to null of the first condition node, which
is transferred from the condition queue to the sync queue in this
method, long chains of ConditionNode instances can be avoided.
Though a single ConditionNode is small, these chains of
ConditionNodes become very huge on the heap (I've seen more than 1GB
on an application server over time) if at least one node was
promoted to the old generation for any reason. They survive minor
collections and are cleaned up only on mixed / full collections, and
thus put unnecessary pressure on G1 garbage collector.
The same change could also be applied to
'AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer'.
I know premature optimization is the root of all evil, on the other
hand I could image that many applications benefit from GC-friendly
ConditionObjects, since they are frequently used in various classes
like PriorityBlockingQueue / LinkedBlockingDeque /
LinkedBlockingQueue, the latter one as default work queue for
executor services like fixed thread pools for processing
asynchronous tasks.
Thank you all for your time and help!
Best regards
Frank
Am 08.02.2024 um 12:15 schrieb Frank Kretschmer:
Hello Thomas, hello Core-Libs-Dev,
thank you for cc'ing my email. In deed my idea/suggestion is to modify
the AbstractQueuedSynchronizer$ConditionNode handling in such a way
that
it gets unlinked from the chain of condition nodes if it is not needed
any more (it might be the "nextWaiter" node), in order to be more
GC-friendly.
@core-libs-dev: I've just attached the “G1LoiteringConditionNodes”
demo
class and "gc.log" again so that you can have a look if you like.
Best regards
Frank
Am 08.02.2024 um 11:04 schrieb Thomas Schatzl:
Hi,
since this looks like a suggestion for a change to the libraries
similar to the mentioned JDK-6805775, and not actually GC, cc'ing the
core-libs-dev mailing list.
Hth,
Thomas
On 07.02.24 15:20, Frank Kretschmer wrote:
Hi Java GC-experts,
I'm facing an interesting G1 garbage collector observation in
OpenJDK
17.0.9+9, which I would like to share with you.
My application runs many asynchronous tasks in a fixed thread pool,
utilizing its standard LinkedBlockingQueue. Usually, it generates
just a
little garbage, but from time to time, I observed that the survivor
spaces grow unexpectedly, and minor collection times increase.
This being the case, many
java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer$ConditionNode
instances can be found on the heap. In fact, the whole heap (rank
1 as
shown in jmap) was filled up with ConditionNode instances after a
while.
After some tests, I figured out that G1 seems to be able to collect
“dead” ConditionNode instances during minor collections only if no
formerly alive ConditionNode instances were promoted to the old
generation and died there.
To illustrate that, I've attached a “G1LoiteringConditionNodes”
class
that can be run for demo purposes, e.g. under Linux with OpenJDK
17.0.9+9 (VM options see comments within the class), and its gc-log
output. It shows that during the first two minutes, everything is
fine,
but after a promotion to the old generation, survivors grow and
minor
pause time increase from 3 to 10ms.
For me, it looks like an issue similar to
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6805775
<https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6805775>
“LinkedBlockingQueue Nodes
should unlink themselves before becoming garbage”, which was
fixed in
OpenJDK 7.
What’s your opinion about that? Wouldn’t it be worth to enable G1 to
collect those AbstractQueuedSynchronizer$ConditionNode instances
during
minor collections, as it is done for LinkedBlockingQueue Nodes?
Best regards
Frank
