On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:56:15 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 two additional > commits since the last revision: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8291555-v2' into JDK-8291555-v2 > - Set condition flags correctly after fast-lock call on aarch64 UseNewLocks... Surely there must be a better name? For how long will these be the new locks? Do we rename the flag to UseOldLocks when the next locking scheme comes along? There must be some property that differentiates these locks from the older locks other than being new. Why not name the flag after that property? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10907#issuecomment-1481191815
