On 12/31/06, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This looks good to me. Its close enough for the current state of
drlvm. In
other words, don't try to precisely replicate the performance numbers I
collected from Sun 1.5.0.
1/50 ratio with usual work load for finalization system is not good,
because
it means 2% VM performance for main task. Let's evaluate following
abstraction. For example for finalization of some objects requires the same
time as for creation. These objects were generated during 10 seconds for
example. So machine will works with 2% performance for main task during 10
seconds when finalizer is works. Finalization shouldn't stop main task, and
2% of performance equals stopping.
Its unclear if you actually ran GCv5 finalizer code or something "like new
GC v5 scheme". I don't know what the data means.
I don't know clear how GC v5 should be started for correct work. I ask to
help me and describe correct running way. But I haven't any replay. So I
can
emulate GC v5 finalization scheme only. So I use 1 finalization thread with
high priority.
The point is that the "ideal finalization" design needs to be driven by
what
important commercial workloads require. It will be a while before these
workloads run fast and stable on drlvm. In other words, drlvm is not yet
ready for investigating the final finalization scheme. Incidentally, the
data collected on Sun 1.5.0 contradicts the "ideal finalization scheme"
suggested above. Given a choice, I would rather do something similar
to a
commercial JVM implementation at this point in time.
The ideal system should have performance which provides finalization of
created objects, but not more. Very high relative performance can block
main
task.
So relative performance of Weldon's scheme in mode 2 is not so high as for
> SUN 1.5.0 JVM 15/ 2600 = 1/173 (main loop/finalizer call).
It's your data. If You think that your results contains such "suitable"
noise, lets use the other test. I asked You to check your scheme on
gc.Synchronized FinalizerTest some time ago. Lets use it with various
parameters.
Also we should decide to optimize finalization system for defined set of
application or emulate existing finalization scheme, i.e if any test works
on RI it should works on our one too. Copping existing scheme for some
application is not good way. If there is a set of application let's find
the
best solution.
BR
Pavel Afremov
I think you are talking about the difference between 1/50 and 1/173. In my
opinion, this difference is in the noise. Its not material.
I think that it can be improved by point 2 of my scheme (Using locks for
> stopping user threads)
As far as I can tell Sun 1.5.0 does not do this. Also, adding more
thread
suspend/resume logic to dlrvm does not help stability and actually may
decrease stability.
or by increasing quantity of finalizer threads like
> in current scheme of finalization.
As far as I can tell Sun 1.5.0 does not do this. Until additional
evidence
is available, I vote for the simplest possible finalizer scheme. This
will
help us a bunch in sorting out the problems in drlvm threading subsystem.
Thanks.
> Pavel Afremov
>
> On 12/28/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Did you check it on current implementation of DRLVM Finalization
System?
> >
> > BR
> > Pavel Afremov.
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/06, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why can't we simply mimic the rational behavior of the RI and
other
> > > > production VMs and leave it at that?
> > > >
> > > > geir
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. To discover what other JVMs do, I created a very simple
> > > finalizer
> > > probe then put it in JIRA HARMONY-2908. I ran this probe on Sun
JVM
> > > 1.5.0_07. Below are the results. It would be good if someone can
> run
> > > this
> > > probe on other JVM/OS combinations. The probe is single threaded
and
> has
> > >
> > > three different execution modes ("java Finx 0", "java Finx 1" and
> "java
> > > Finx
> > > 2"). By running each of the modes on WindowsXP and using
Microsoft's
> > > Process Viewer, one can learn what the different JVM threads are
> doing.
> > > More on this later.
> > >
> > > Mode 0
> > > This mode intentionally does not create any finalizable
objects. The
> > > main()
> > > method simply runs a cpu intensive workload forever. After every
> > > 1000000
> > > loops main() will print a distinctive string that includes a loop
> count.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mode 1
> > > main() creates 100K finalizable objects that are intentionally
shoved
> > > into a
> > > state where their finalizer needs to be called. main() then
proceeds
> to
> > > run
> > > the same cpu intensive workload as above. The finalize() method
will
> > > execute just one call of the same cpu intensive workload then
> > > returns. This
> > > simulates a short running finalizer. finalize() prints a
distinctive
> > > string
> > > to make it easy to quickly read the output which is comingled with
> > > main().
> > >
> > > Mode 2
> > > This mode is identical to Mode 1 except the finalize() method calls
> the
> > > cpu
> > > intensive workload endlessly.
> > >
> > > The above describes how the probe is constructed. Below are
> > > observations
> > > from running this probe on Sun 1.5.0 JVM.
> > >
> > > Mode 0
> > >
> > > There are seven threads. Thread 0 consumes 99% of the total cpu
> > > time. And
> > > is executing in user mode 100% of the time. Most likely this is
the
> > > java
> > > app thread running main(). All the remaining threads do not
> accumulate
> > > any
> > > significant cpu time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mode 1
> > >
> > > There are seven threads. Thread 0 accumulates roughly 2% of total
cpu
> > > time. Thread 3 accumulates the other 98%. Process Viewer reports
> > > Thread 3
> > > having "above normal" priority. (I have not chased down the
mapping
> > > from
> > > Process Viewer priority to win API priority). At the top of the
> > > finalize()
> > > method a static variable is incremented then printed out. This
allows
> > > us to
> > > watch a rolling count of how many objects have been
> finalized. Watching
> > > the
> > > console output for a few minutes, it looks like about 9000 objects
are
> > > finalized in the same time period that main() completes 100
> > > loops. Since
> > > both main() and finalize() are running the same workload, it looks
> > > like Thread 3 with "above normal" priority is the thread running
the
> > > finalizers. The disparity between 90:1 on console output and 50:1
in
> > > Process Viewer is probably sampling noise. Also, it looks like
Thread
> 0
> > > is
> > > running main() just like it was in Mode 0.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mode 2
> > >
> > > Again the JVM is running exactly 7 threads. Only the one object's
> > > finalize() method is ever called. Process Viewer shows Thread 3
has
> > > "above
> > > normal" priority and accumulating roughly 99% of the cpu
> time. Watching
> > > the
> > > console output for a few minutes, it look like 2600 finalize()
loops
> to
> > > 15
> > > main loops. It appears that no additional threads are created to
> handle
> > > to
> > > remaining 99,999 waiting finalizable objects. These objects
appear
> to
> > > be
> > > blocked waiting for the first object to finish. Also it looks like
> > > Thread 0
> > > is running main() just like Mode 0 and 1. Given that Process
Viewer
> > > shows
> > > that Thread 0 continuously and slowly accumulates CPU time, it
appears
> > > that
> > > main() is not suspended but continues to make forward progress.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Weldon Washburn
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
