Hi Eric,
What I tried to point out is that I'm not seeing the Full GC happened
when running with
-XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent
The test hangs if I launch the test with the java launcher on windows
jdk8-b117.
$ java -XX:+PrintGCDetails -Xmx2m -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent
CollectionUsageThresho
ld
Collection usage threshold of G1 Old Gen set to 10
Calling System.gc()
[GC pause (System.gc()) (young) (initial-mark), 0.0017152 secs]
[Parallel Time: 1.4 ms, GC Workers: 4]
[GC Worker Start (ms): Min: 97.9, Avg: 97.9, Max: 97.9, Diff: 0.0]
[Ext Root Scanning (ms): Min: 0.1, Avg: 0.7, Max: 1.2, Diff: 1.1, Sum:
2.7]
[Code Root Marking (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum:
0.0]
[Update RS (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 0.0]
[Processed Buffers: Min: 0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0, Diff: 0, Sum: 0]
[Scan RS (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 0.0]
[Code Root Scanning (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum:
0.0]
[Object Copy (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.4, Max: 0.8, Diff: 0.8, Sum: 1.7]
[Termination (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.2, Max: 0.4, Diff: 0.4, Sum: 1.0]
[GC Worker Other (ms): Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 0.0]
[GC Worker Total (ms): Min: 1.3, Avg: 1.3, Max: 1.4, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 5.4]
[GC Worker End (ms): Min: 99.2, Avg: 99.2, Max: 99.2, Diff: 0.0]
[Code Root Fixup: 0.0 ms]
[Code Root Migration: 0.0 ms]
[Clear CT: 0.0 ms]
[Other: 0.3 ms]
[Choose CSet: 0.0 ms]
[Ref Proc: 0.2 ms]
[Ref Enq: 0.0 ms]
[Free CSet: 0.0 ms]
[Eden: 1024.0K(1024.0K)->0.0B(1024.0K) Survivors: 0.0B->1024.0K Heap:
991.9K(2048.0K)->782.7K(204
8.0K)]
[Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.00 secs]
[GC concurrent-root-region-scan-start]
[GC concurrent-root-region-scan-end, 0.0004602 secs]
[GC concurrent-mark-start]
[GC concurrent-mark-end, 0.0000895 secs]
[GC remark [GC ref-proc, 0.0001248 secs], 0.0008436 secs]
[Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.00 secs]
[GC cleanup 803K->803K(2048K), 0.0001712 secs]
[Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.00 secs]
If I ran the test with jtreg, it passes but if you looked at the log,
you will find that the Full GC happens when it fails to allocate an
object (this explains why you need to set -Xmx2m to make the test passes).
[Full GC (Allocation Failure) 894K->484K(2048K), 0.0020662 secs]
[Full GC (Allocation Failure) 863K->525K(2048K), 0.0029365 secs]
[Full GC (Allocation Failure) 842K->525K(2048K), 0.0023650 secs]
There is some mystery with -XX:+UseG1GC and
-XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent that we will need to consult with the
GC team. -Xmx2m would mask the problem. I suggest to take out line
38 and 39 and file a bug for further investigation.
If the serviceability team doesn't object this patch, I can sponsor it
and push it for you.
Mandy
On 11/27/2013 9:21 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Mandy,
Yes, I have tested and all settings are passed, as you mentioned the
test hangs with -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent and
default heap size as no GC happens on Old Gen. That is why to add
-Xmx2m and big object to make sure GC happens.
I didn't realized the -Xconcgc is same as -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC, i
have updated the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/27 10:17, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
I'll defer this to the serviceability team to sponsor it and also
get one more review.
I don't think you need all 7 @runs. -Xconcgc is equivalent to
setting -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC. For G1 and CMS, you should use
-XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent so that System.gc will force a GC
in foreground that you can count the GC reliably. The test wants to
get notified for each System.gc and if there is any GC caused by
allocation failure, the test would fail due to the unexpected GC
count. It seems that you may run into this issue setting -Xmx2m.
Have you got the test passed in all settings? I'm seeing that the
test hangs with -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent
without -Xmx2m. Looks like there is no GC in the old gen - I'm not
familiar with G1 if it allocates the big object in the old gen.
Jarolsav - can you help Eric diagnose this issue? I recalled you
ran into something like that before - maybe Staffan?
thanks
Mandy
On 11/25/2013 8:53 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Mandy,
1. for L34-40, executing tests with 7 settings is trying to cover
more cases (normal cases and special cases), especially last 3
settings, as found that the test hung if using vm option
"-XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent" with one of 3 options
-XX:+UseG1GC, -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC or -Xconcgc
2. for L61, that is right, the test has been updated. please review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/26 8:37, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 11/24/2013 7:41 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Mandy & All,
Sorry for late!
The webrev below is just finished based on the comments from
peers, please help to review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks for the patch that looks okay. Some comments:
L34-40: can you explain why you want to run all 7 settings? I
would expect one for each collector.
L61: I think the static checker variable is meant to be a local
variable (and looks like "pools" and "managers" don't need to be
static variable).
Mandy
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/15 10:55, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 11/14/2013 6:16 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I'm working on the bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7067973.
It is a test bug as the test doesn't guarantee memory allocated
from the Old Gen, if the used memory is zero and doesn't cross
the threshold, no notification is sent, so both the main thread
and Checker thread are blocked to wait for the GC notification.
so the suggested fix is similar as the fix
ResetPeakMemoryUsage.java
<http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/a0896634ab46> to
create big object to make sure the old gen usage crosses the
threshold and run test with different GC vmoptions.
What are you looking for specifically? I have provided the
above information. I need to see the webrev to provide further
feedback.
Mandy
