Re: RFR: 8291555: Implement alternative fast-locking scheme [v49]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:59:19 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > v47 is hitting an assertion failure in my Mach5 Tier2 and Tier3 testing: > > ``` > # Internal Error > (/opt/mach5/mesos/work_dir/slaves/741e9afd-8c02-45c3-b2e2-9db1450d0832-S30407/frameworks/1735e8a2-a1db-478c-8104-60c8b0af87dd-0196/executors/b94a7623-5f98-46f3-8e2c-08444e95afa4/runs/a5754c45-3d7a-46fa-ba4b-c52efcf6ca3b/workspace/open/src/hotspot/share/runtime/lockStack.cpp:78), > pid=1731612, tid=1731617 > # assert((_top < end_offset())) failed: lockstack overflow: _top 1704 > end_offset 1704 > # > # JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (21.0) (fastdebug build > 21-internal-LTS-2023-03-31-1908037.daniel.daugherty.8291555forjdk21.git) > # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (fastdebug > 21-internal-LTS-2023-03-31-1908037.daniel.daugherty.8291555forjdk21.git, > mixed mode, tiered, compressed oops, compressed class ptrs, serial gc, > linux-aarch64) > # Problematic frame: > # V [libjvm.so+0x10cfa0c] LockStack::verify_no_thread(char const*) const+0x288 > ``` > > Please see the bug for the latest details as I investigate. Uh, that is a simple mistake. It should assert _top <= end_offset(). _top is allowed to be at _end, but not go beyond that. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10907#issuecomment-1492868319
Re: RFR: 8291555: Implement alternative fast-locking scheme [v49]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:39:03 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote: >> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current >> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking >> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload >> of the mark word. That overloading causes massive problems with Lilliput, >> because it means we have to check and deal with this situation when trying >> to access the mark-word. And because of the very racy nature, this turns out >> to be very complex and would involve a variant of the inflation protocol to >> ensure that the object header is stable. (The current implementation of >> setting/fetching the i-hash provides a glimpse into the complexity). >> >> What the original stack-locking does is basically to push a stack-lock onto >> the stack which consists only of the displaced header, and CAS a pointer to >> this stack location into the object header (the lowest two header bits being >> 00 indicate 'stack-locked'). The pointer into the stack can then be used to >> identify which thread currently owns the lock. >> >> This change basically reverses stack-locking: It still CASes the lowest two >> header bits to 00 to indicate 'fast-locked' but does *not* overload the >> upper bits with a stack-pointer. Instead, it pushes the object-reference to >> a thread-local lock-stack. This is a new structure which is basically a >> small array of oops that is associated with each thread. Experience shows >> that this array typcially remains very small (3-5 elements). Using this lock >> stack, it is possible to query which threads own which locks. Most >> importantly, the most common question 'does the current thread own me?' is >> very quickly answered by doing a quick scan of the array. More complex >> queries like 'which thread owns X?' are not performed in very >> performance-critical paths (usually in code like JVMTI or deadlock >> detection) where it is ok to do more complex operations (and we already do). >> The lock-stack is also a new set of GC roots, and would be scanned during >> thread scanning, possibly concurrently, via the normal protocols. >> >> The lock-stack is fixed size, currently with 8 elements. According to my >> experiments with various workloads, this covers the vast majority of >> workloads (in-fact, most workloads seem to never exceed 5 active locks per >> thread at a time). We check for overflow in the fast-paths and when the >> lock-stack is full, we take the slow-path, which would inflate the lock to a >> monitor. That case should be very rare. >> >> In contrast to stack-locking, fast-locking does *not* support recursive >> locking (yet). When that happens, the fast-lock gets inflated to a full >> monitor. It is not clear if it is worth to add support for recursive >> fast-locking. >> >> One trouble is that when a contending thread arrives at a fast-locked >> object, it must inflate the fast-lock to a full monitor. Normally, we need >> to know the current owning thread, and record that in the monitor, so that >> the contending thread can wait for the current owner to properly exit the >> monitor. However, fast-locking doesn't have this information. What we do >> instead is to record a special marker ANONYMOUS_OWNER. When the thread that >> currently holds the lock arrives at monitorexit, and observes >> ANONYMOUS_OWNER, it knows it must be itself, fixes the owner to be itself, >> and then properly exits the monitor, and thus handing over to the contending >> thread. >> >> As an alternative, I considered to remove stack-locking altogether, and only >> use heavy monitors. In most workloads this did not show measurable >> regressions. However, in a few workloads, I have observed severe >> regressions. All of them have been using old synchronized Java collections >> (Vector, Stack), StringBuffer or similar code. The combination of two >> conditions leads to regressions without stack- or fast-locking: 1. The >> workload synchronizes on uncontended locks (e.g. single-threaded use of >> Vector or StringBuffer) and 2. The workload churns such locks. IOW, >> uncontended use of Vector, StringBuffer, etc as such is ok, but creating >> lots of such single-use, single-threaded-locked objects leads to massive >> ObjectMonitor churn, which can lead to a significant performance impact. But >> alas, such code exists, and we probably don't want to punish it if we can >> avoid it. >> >> This change enables to simplify (and speed-up!) a lot of code: >> >> - The inflation protocol is no longer necessary: we can directly CAS the >> (tagged) ObjectMonitor pointer to the object header. >> - Accessing the hashcode could now be done in the fastpath always, if the >> hashcode has been installed. Fast-locked headers can be used directly, for >> monitor-locked objects we can easily reach-through to the displaced header. >> This is safe because Java threads partic
Re: RFR: 8291555: Implement alternative fast-locking scheme [v49]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:39:03 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote: >> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current >> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking >> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload >> of the mark word. That overloading causes massive problems with Lilliput, >> because it means we have to check and deal with this situation when trying >> to access the mark-word. And because of the very racy nature, this turns out >> to be very complex and would involve a variant of the inflation protocol to >> ensure that the object header is stable. (The current implementation of >> setting/fetching the i-hash provides a glimpse into the complexity). >> >> What the original stack-locking does is basically to push a stack-lock onto >> the stack which consists only of the displaced header, and CAS a pointer to >> this stack location into the object header (the lowest two header bits being >> 00 indicate 'stack-locked'). The pointer into the stack can then be used to >> identify which thread currently owns the lock. >> >> This change basically reverses stack-locking: It still CASes the lowest two >> header bits to 00 to indicate 'fast-locked' but does *not* overload the >> upper bits with a stack-pointer. Instead, it pushes the object-reference to >> a thread-local lock-stack. This is a new structure which is basically a >> small array of oops that is associated with each thread. Experience shows >> that this array typcially remains very small (3-5 elements). Using this lock >> stack, it is possible to query which threads own which locks. Most >> importantly, the most common question 'does the current thread own me?' is >> very quickly answered by doing a quick scan of the array. More complex >> queries like 'which thread owns X?' are not performed in very >> performance-critical paths (usually in code like JVMTI or deadlock >> detection) where it is ok to do more complex operations (and we already do). >> The lock-stack is also a new set of GC roots, and would be scanned during >> thread scanning, possibly concurrently, via the normal protocols. >> >> The lock-stack is fixed size, currently with 8 elements. According to my >> experiments with various workloads, this covers the vast majority of >> workloads (in-fact, most workloads seem to never exceed 5 active locks per >> thread at a time). We check for overflow in the fast-paths and when the >> lock-stack is full, we take the slow-path, which would inflate the lock to a >> monitor. That case should be very rare. >> >> In contrast to stack-locking, fast-locking does *not* support recursive >> locking (yet). When that happens, the fast-lock gets inflated to a full >> monitor. It is not clear if it is worth to add support for recursive >> fast-locking. >> >> One trouble is that when a contending thread arrives at a fast-locked >> object, it must inflate the fast-lock to a full monitor. Normally, we need >> to know the current owning thread, and record that in the monitor, so that >> the contending thread can wait for the current owner to properly exit the >> monitor. However, fast-locking doesn't have this information. What we do >> instead is to record a special marker ANONYMOUS_OWNER. When the thread that >> currently holds the lock arrives at monitorexit, and observes >> ANONYMOUS_OWNER, it knows it must be itself, fixes the owner to be itself, >> and then properly exits the monitor, and thus handing over to the contending >> thread. >> >> As an alternative, I considered to remove stack-locking altogether, and only >> use heavy monitors. In most workloads this did not show measurable >> regressions. However, in a few workloads, I have observed severe >> regressions. All of them have been using old synchronized Java collections >> (Vector, Stack), StringBuffer or similar code. The combination of two >> conditions leads to regressions without stack- or fast-locking: 1. The >> workload synchronizes on uncontended locks (e.g. single-threaded use of >> Vector or StringBuffer) and 2. The workload churns such locks. IOW, >> uncontended use of Vector, StringBuffer, etc as such is ok, but creating >> lots of such single-use, single-threaded-locked objects leads to massive >> ObjectMonitor churn, which can lead to a significant performance impact. But >> alas, such code exists, and we probably don't want to punish it if we can >> avoid it. >> >> This change enables to simplify (and speed-up!) a lot of code: >> >> - The inflation protocol is no longer necessary: we can directly CAS the >> (tagged) ObjectMonitor pointer to the object header. >> - Accessing the hashcode could now be done in the fastpath always, if the >> hashcode has been installed. Fast-locked headers can be used directly, for >> monitor-locked objects we can easily reach-through to the displaced header. >> This is safe because Java threads partic
Re: RFR: 8291555: Implement alternative fast-locking scheme [v49]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:39:03 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote: >> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current >> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking >> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload >> of the mark word. That overloading causes massive problems with Lilliput, >> because it means we have to check and deal with this situation when trying >> to access the mark-word. And because of the very racy nature, this turns out >> to be very complex and would involve a variant of the inflation protocol to >> ensure that the object header is stable. (The current implementation of >> setting/fetching the i-hash provides a glimpse into the complexity). >> >> What the original stack-locking does is basically to push a stack-lock onto >> the stack which consists only of the displaced header, and CAS a pointer to >> this stack location into the object header (the lowest two header bits being >> 00 indicate 'stack-locked'). The pointer into the stack can then be used to >> identify which thread currently owns the lock. >> >> This change basically reverses stack-locking: It still CASes the lowest two >> header bits to 00 to indicate 'fast-locked' but does *not* overload the >> upper bits with a stack-pointer. Instead, it pushes the object-reference to >> a thread-local lock-stack. This is a new structure which is basically a >> small array of oops that is associated with each thread. Experience shows >> that this array typcially remains very small (3-5 elements). Using this lock >> stack, it is possible to query which threads own which locks. Most >> importantly, the most common question 'does the current thread own me?' is >> very quickly answered by doing a quick scan of the array. More complex >> queries like 'which thread owns X?' are not performed in very >> performance-critical paths (usually in code like JVMTI or deadlock >> detection) where it is ok to do more complex operations (and we already do). >> The lock-stack is also a new set of GC roots, and would be scanned during >> thread scanning, possibly concurrently, via the normal protocols. >> >> The lock-stack is fixed size, currently with 8 elements. According to my >> experiments with various workloads, this covers the vast majority of >> workloads (in-fact, most workloads seem to never exceed 5 active locks per >> thread at a time). We check for overflow in the fast-paths and when the >> lock-stack is full, we take the slow-path, which would inflate the lock to a >> monitor. That case should be very rare. >> >> In contrast to stack-locking, fast-locking does *not* support recursive >> locking (yet). When that happens, the fast-lock gets inflated to a full >> monitor. It is not clear if it is worth to add support for recursive >> fast-locking. >> >> One trouble is that when a contending thread arrives at a fast-locked >> object, it must inflate the fast-lock to a full monitor. Normally, we need >> to know the current owning thread, and record that in the monitor, so that >> the contending thread can wait for the current owner to properly exit the >> monitor. However, fast-locking doesn't have this information. What we do >> instead is to record a special marker ANONYMOUS_OWNER. When the thread that >> currently holds the lock arrives at monitorexit, and observes >> ANONYMOUS_OWNER, it knows it must be itself, fixes the owner to be itself, >> and then properly exits the monitor, and thus handing over to the contending >> thread. >> >> As an alternative, I considered to remove stack-locking altogether, and only >> use heavy monitors. In most workloads this did not show measurable >> regressions. However, in a few workloads, I have observed severe >> regressions. All of them have been using old synchronized Java collections >> (Vector, Stack), StringBuffer or similar code. The combination of two >> conditions leads to regressions without stack- or fast-locking: 1. The >> workload synchronizes on uncontended locks (e.g. single-threaded use of >> Vector or StringBuffer) and 2. The workload churns such locks. IOW, >> uncontended use of Vector, StringBuffer, etc as such is ok, but creating >> lots of such single-use, single-threaded-locked objects leads to massive >> ObjectMonitor churn, which can lead to a significant performance impact. But >> alas, such code exists, and we probably don't want to punish it if we can >> avoid it. >> >> This change enables to simplify (and speed-up!) a lot of code: >> >> - The inflation protocol is no longer necessary: we can directly CAS the >> (tagged) ObjectMonitor pointer to the object header. >> - Accessing the hashcode could now be done in the fastpath always, if the >> hashcode has been installed. Fast-locked headers can be used directly, for >> monitor-locked objects we can easily reach-through to the displaced header. >> This is safe because Java threads partic
Re: RFR: 8291555: Implement alternative fast-locking scheme [v49]
> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current > stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking > (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload > of the mark word. That overloading causes massive problems with Lilliput, > because it means we have to check and deal with this situation when trying to > access the mark-word. And because of the very racy nature, this turns out to > be very complex and would involve a variant of the inflation protocol to > ensure that the object header is stable. (The current implementation of > setting/fetching the i-hash provides a glimpse into the complexity). > > What the original stack-locking does is basically to push a stack-lock onto > the stack which consists only of the displaced header, and CAS a pointer to > this stack location into the object header (the lowest two header bits being > 00 indicate 'stack-locked'). The pointer into the stack can then be used to > identify which thread currently owns the lock. > > This change basically reverses stack-locking: It still CASes the lowest two > header bits to 00 to indicate 'fast-locked' but does *not* overload the upper > bits with a stack-pointer. Instead, it pushes the object-reference to a > thread-local lock-stack. This is a new structure which is basically a small > array of oops that is associated with each thread. Experience shows that this > array typcially remains very small (3-5 elements). Using this lock stack, it > is possible to query which threads own which locks. Most importantly, the > most common question 'does the current thread own me?' is very quickly > answered by doing a quick scan of the array. More complex queries like 'which > thread owns X?' are not performed in very performance-critical paths (usually > in code like JVMTI or deadlock detection) where it is ok to do more complex > operations (and we already do). The lock-stack is also a new set of GC roots, > and would be scanned during thread scanning, possibly concurrently, via the > normal p rotocols. > > The lock-stack is fixed size, currently with 8 elements. According to my > experiments with various workloads, this covers the vast majority of > workloads (in-fact, most workloads seem to never exceed 5 active locks per > thread at a time). We check for overflow in the fast-paths and when the > lock-stack is full, we take the slow-path, which would inflate the lock to a > monitor. That case should be very rare. > > In contrast to stack-locking, fast-locking does *not* support recursive > locking (yet). When that happens, the fast-lock gets inflated to a full > monitor. It is not clear if it is worth to add support for recursive > fast-locking. > > One trouble is that when a contending thread arrives at a fast-locked object, > it must inflate the fast-lock to a full monitor. Normally, we need to know > the current owning thread, and record that in the monitor, so that the > contending thread can wait for the current owner to properly exit the > monitor. However, fast-locking doesn't have this information. What we do > instead is to record a special marker ANONYMOUS_OWNER. When the thread that > currently holds the lock arrives at monitorexit, and observes > ANONYMOUS_OWNER, it knows it must be itself, fixes the owner to be itself, > and then properly exits the monitor, and thus handing over to the contending > thread. > > As an alternative, I considered to remove stack-locking altogether, and only > use heavy monitors. In most workloads this did not show measurable > regressions. However, in a few workloads, I have observed severe regressions. > All of them have been using old synchronized Java collections (Vector, > Stack), StringBuffer or similar code. The combination of two conditions leads > to regressions without stack- or fast-locking: 1. The workload synchronizes > on uncontended locks (e.g. single-threaded use of Vector or StringBuffer) and > 2. The workload churns such locks. IOW, uncontended use of Vector, > StringBuffer, etc as such is ok, but creating lots of such single-use, > single-threaded-locked objects leads to massive ObjectMonitor churn, which > can lead to a significant performance impact. But alas, such code exists, and > we probably don't want to punish it if we can avoid it. > > This change enables to simplify (and speed-up!) a lot of code: > > - The inflation protocol is no longer necessary: we can directly CAS the > (tagged) ObjectMonitor pointer to the object header. > - Accessing the hashcode could now be done in the fastpath always, if the > hashcode has been installed. Fast-locked headers can be used directly, for > monitor-locked objects we can easily reach-through to the displaced header. > This is safe because Java threads participate in monitor deflation protocol. > This would be implemented in a separate PR > > > Testing: > - [x] tier1 x86_64 x aarch64 x +
