On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:51:10 GMT, Roman Kennke <rken...@openjdk.org> 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 grown when needed. This means that we need to check for >> potential overflow before attempting locking. When that is the case, locking >> fast-paths would call into the runtime to grow the stack and handle the >> locking. Compiled fast-paths (C1 and C2 on x86_64 and aarch64) do this check >> on method entry to avoid (possibly lots) of such checks at locking sites. >> >> 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 +UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier2 x86_64 x aarch64 x +UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier3 x86_64 x aarch64 x +UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier4 x86_64 x aarch64 x +UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier1 x86_64 x aarch64 x -UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier2 x86_64 x aarch64 x -UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier3 x86_64 x aarch64 x -UseFastLocking >> - [x] tier4 x86_64 x aarch64 x -UseFastLocking >> - [x] Several real-world applications have been tested with this change in >> tandem with Lilliput without any problems, yet >> >> ### Performance >> >> #### Simple Microbenchmark >> >> The microbenchmark exercises only the locking primitives for monitorenter >> and monitorexit, without contention. The benchmark can be found >> (here)[https://github.com/rkennke/fastlockbench]. Numbers are in ns/ops. >> >> | | x86_64 | aarch64 | >> | -- | -- | -- | >> | -UseFastLocking | 20.651 | 20.764 | >> | +UseFastLocking | 18.896 | 18.908 | >> >> >> #### Renaissance >> >> | x86_64 | | | | aarch64 | | >> -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- >> | stack-locking | fast-locking | | | stack-locking | fast-locking | >> AkkaUct | 841.884 | 836.948 | 0.59% | | 1475.774 | 1465.647 | 0.69% >> Reactors | 11041.427 | 11181.451 | -1.25% | | 11381.751 | 11521.318 | >> -1.21% >> Als | 1367.183 | 1359.358 | 0.58% | | 1678.103 | 1688.067 | -0.59% >> ChiSquare | 577.021 | 577.398 | -0.07% | | 986.619 | 988.063 | -0.15% >> GaussMix | 817.459 | 819.073 | -0.20% | | 1154.293 | 1155.522 | -0.11% >> LogRegression | 598.343 | 603.371 | -0.83% | | 638.052 | 644.306 | -0.97% >> MovieLens | 8248.116 | 8314.576 | -0.80% | | 7569.219 | 7646.828 | -1.01%% >> NaiveBayes | 587.607 | 581.608 | 1.03% | | 541.583 | 550.059 | -1.54% >> PageRank | 3260.553 | 3263.472 | -0.09% | | 4376.405 | 4381.101 | -0.11% >> FjKmeans | 979.978 | 976.122 | 0.40% | | 774.312 | 771.235 | 0.40% >> FutureGenetic | 2187.369 | 2183.271 | 0.19% | | 2685.722 | 2689.056 | >> -0.12% >> ParMnemonics | 2434.551 | 2468.763 | -1.39% | | 4278.225 | 4263.863 | 0.34% >> Scrabble | 111.882 | 111.768 | 0.10% | | 151.796 | 153.959 | -1.40% >> RxScrabble | 210.252 | 211.38 | -0.53% | | 310.116 | 315.594 | -1.74% >> Dotty | 750.415 | 752.658 | -0.30% | | 1033.636 | 1036.168 | -0.24% >> ScalaDoku | 3072.05 | 3051.2 | 0.68% | | 3711.506 | 3690.04 | 0.58% >> ScalaKmeans | 211.427 | 209.957 | 0.70% | | 264.38 | 265.788 | -0.53% >> ScalaStmBench7 | 1017.795 | 1018.869 | -0.11% | | 1088.182 | 1092.266 | >> -0.37% >> Philosophers | 6450.124 | 6565.705 | -1.76% | | 12017.964 | 11902.559 | >> 0.97% >> FinagleChirper | 3953.623 | 3972.647 | -0.48% | | 4750.751 | 4769.274 | >> -0.39% >> FinagleHttp | 3970.526 | 4005.341 | -0.87% | | 5294.125 | 5296.224 | -0.04% > > Roman Kennke has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Several changes (mostly cosmetic) in response to reviews Another way to look at the option name question is to invert the sense of the option. The old stack-locking code would be enabled by this new `UseStackLocking` option (which would be on by default for now) and the newer locking code that uses a lock-stack that is embedded in the JavaThread would be the "else" case of the temporary `UseStackLocking` option. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10907
