Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDerick Dalton Modified over 9 years ago
1
ISMM 2004 Mostly Concurrent Compaction for Mark-Sweep GC Yoav Ossia, Ori Ben-Yitzhak, Marc Segal IBM Haifa Research Lab. Israel
2
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Commercial Multi-tier Applications Clients (or load injectors) Sending requests to Server Web Server – using application Application and database Transaction – a request cycle Performance requirements Restricted resource utilization on the server (e.g., CPU utilization below 50%) Throughput – Transactions per second Average transaction response time Client Server Application DB
3
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Commercial Multi-tier Applications Clients (or load injectors) Sending requests to Server Web Server – using application Application and database Transaction – a (set of) request cycle(s) Performance requirements Restricted resource utilization on the server (e.g., CPU utilization below 50%) Throughput – Transactions per second Average transaction response time Client Server Application DB
4
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Commercial Multi-tier Applications Clients (or load injectors) Sending requests to Server Web Server – using application Application and database Transaction – a (set of) request cycle(s) Performance requirements Throughput – Transactions per second Average Transaction Response Time At restricted CPU utilization (e.g., below 50%) Client Server Application DB
5
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Observations GC share is negligible (every 20 sec.) in all examples 1.Long compaction occurs 2.Switch from 500 ms Stop-The-World (STW) GC, to 250 ms mostly concurrent GC 1 2
6
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Observations GC share is negligible (every 20 sec.) in all examples 1.Long compaction occurs 2.Switch from 500 ms Stop-The-World (STW) GC, to 250 ms mostly concurrent GC 1 2 Average Response time Time 1.0 2.0 Average Response time Time 1.0 2.0
7
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: Insights Average response time overreacts To shorter GC pause time To occasional compaction Why? Longer GC pause times create a queue of transactions Queue persist long after the GC Transaction timeout creates additional work Conclusion: “some” pause time is acceptable but extras should be avoided
8
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: The Clinic Analogy Receptionist handles the incoming patient in 5 minutes, the physician in 10 minutes. Appointments are scheduled every 10 minutes An appointment lasts 15 minutes :=) But if the receptionist takes a long break… When he returns, appointments last ~50 minutes :=( Only after a while, with hard work (of both receptionist and physician), QoS may be restored
9
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: The Physician Analogy Receptionist handles the incoming patient in 5 minutes, the physician in 10 minutes. Appointments are scheduled every 10 minutes An appointment lasts 15 minutes :=) But if the receptionist takes a long break… When he returns, appointments last ~50 minutes :=( Only after a while, with hard work (of both receptionist and physician), QoS may be restored
10
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: The Physician Analogy Receptionist handles the incoming patient in 5 minutes, the physician in 10 minutes. Appointments are scheduled every 10 minutes An appointment lasts 15 minutes :=) But if the receptionist takes a long break… When he returns, appointments last ~50 minutes :=( Only after a while, with hard work (of both receptionist and physician), QoS may be restored
11
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: The Physician Analogy Receptionist handles the incoming patient in 5 minutes, the physician in 10 minutes. Appointments are scheduled every 10 minutes An appointment lasts 15 minutes :=) But if the receptionist takes a long break… When he returns, appointments last ~50 minutes :=( Only after a while, with hard work (of both receptionist and physician), QoS may be restored
12
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Prologue: The Physician Analogy Receptionist handles the incoming patient in 5 minutes, the physician in 10 minutes. Appointments are scheduled every 10 minutes An appointment lasts 15 minutes :=) But if the receptionist takes a long break… When he returns, appointments last ~50 minutes :=( Only after a while, with hard work (of both receptionist and physician), QoS may be restored
13
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Related work, conclusions and future directions
14
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Mark-Sweep (and Compact) GC Used by many modern memory management systems Either for the entire heap, or for parts (e.g., the old objects area of generational GC) Good performance on large server heaps Usually activated by an allocation request, when the heap is full Mark - tags all objects that are reachable from roots Sweep – Reclaims unmarked objects into list of free chunks Result may be unsatisfactory (fragmentation) Compact – packs together all live objects, creating a large free chunk
15
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Characteristics of Compaction Includes two activities Move of live objects Fix-up of all references (in objects and roots) to new locations Advantages Eliminates fragmentation and enables (better, faster) allocation Better cache locality Disadvantages Very expensive. Typically takes much more time than Mark- Sweep Done in Stop-The-World (STW) mode Severe impact on pause time Avoided as much as possible, but is occasionally inevitable Compaction is the weak point of Mark Sweep GC (pause time)
16
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Conclusions and future directions
17
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Mostly Concurrent Compaction - Overview Our Goal: restrict the effect of compaction on pause time Typically to less than mark time For average response time QoS, critical code (e.g., heartbeat) Method – partial Move in STW, concurrent Fix-up Reduce the pause time of the Move phase, by using incremental compaction Select the compacted part according to sweep results To optimize compaction impact and control pause time effect Execute the fix-up phase after the move, when application threads are resumed Correctness preserved by page-protecting the unfixed objects from application threads access
18
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Assumptions About the Environment Memory management module Uses Mark Sweep GC Has a move operation – able to pack objects in the heap Supplies fix-up logic - knows the new location of an object by the original address Operating system services Map2 - maps physical memory into two virtual address ranges, or views ProtN - protects a virtual address range of pages from read and write access. Unprot - removes the protection from specified page(s) Execute a Trap routine upon page access violation
19
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Conclusions and future directions
20
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 The Generic Algorithm - Details At Application initialization Use Map2 to create the application view and the fix-up view of the heap Calculating the areas to compact Motivation: optimal quality at restricted move time Heap is divided into small sections (e.g., 100 sections) Gather object layout information during sweep Per section: free space, number of small free chunks, etc. Select the optimal set of sections for compaction Using configurable policy/heuristic
21
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 The Generic Algorithm - Details (cont.) Move phase Objects are compacted within the selected areas Fix-up of root references Prepare the heap pages Page protect all heap pages that contain objects Reset state of all pages (that contain objects) to Unfixed Rest of (“free”) pages are set to Fixed Resume execution of application threads
22
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 The Generic Algorithm - Concurrent Fix-up (method) Constrains All Unfixed pages are fixed, and only once A page starts as Unfixed (and protected), then Busy, and finally Fixed (and unprotected) Application threads access only Fixed pages Fix-up of page (Exclusive Fix) Done only by a thread that managed to change the page’s state from Unfixed to Busy All the (protected) page’s references are fixed. Page is accessed through the (unprotected) Fix-up view Protection is lifted Page state is set to Fixed
23
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 The Generic Algorithm - Concurrent fix-up (who/how) Concurrent Fixing – fix-up that is initiated by the collector All concurrency flavors are possible Concurrent Fixers scan the heap, and try to Exclusively Fix each page Failure is OK; someone else did (or is doing) the fix-up Trapped Fixing – forced fix-up Access violating application thread becomes a Trapped Fixer Executes a trap routine that attempts to Exclusively Fix the accessed page If fails, thread must wait till page becomes Fixed Completed when Concurrent Fixing exhaust the heap
24
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Conclusions and future directions
25
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Our Implementation Implemented for Java, on top of the IBM J9 JVM Using Mark Sweep GC on the entire heap Reusing parallel move code and fix-up logic of J9’s compactor Configurable fix-up unit, bigger than the OS page size Fix-up more than an OS page on each trap Fewer access violations (more “hot” memory fixed each time) Reduces the relative cost of traps Longer trapped fixing We found that a significant unit size increase can be tolerated Concurrent fixing by incremental work of the Java threads For each X KB of allocation, fix-up X*F KB of heap space
26
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Conclusions and future directions
27
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Testing Environment Red Hat Linux OS Pentium 4 Intel uniprocessor and a 4-way, Intel Xeon MP processors, server Benchmarks: SPECjbb2000, Health (from Java-olden suite) and SPECjvm98 Compaction triggered every N GCs N=10 for SPECjvm98, 15 for SPECjbb, and 1 for Health No compact (Base) compared to compact with three area selection heuristics : Dark Matter reduction (DM) Creating Bigger Free chunks (BF) Round-Robin (RR)
28
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Results : Throughput and Pause Time (Highlights) Minor effect on pause time Area selection heuristics matters, and should not be hard-coded
29
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Results: Overall Costs of Concurrent Fix-up INCR-C - our Mostly Concurrent incremental compactor to INCR-STW - same incremental move with STW fix-up FULL-STW - full heap move with STW fix-up STWinc pause time contribution is 3 times the move time No throughput gain over our compactor STWfull has very large pause time increase Compaction time is up to ten times the mark time Significant throughput gain with Health, some gain with SPECjvm Concurrent fix-up is better than STW fix-up, for incremental compaction Partial (but “smart”) compaction may be more effective than full compaction
30
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Results: Cost of Access Violations Concern: recently, page protection techniques became relatively inefficient, due to increase in computational speed SPECjbb costs of Trapped fix-up Conclusion: For concurrent fix-up, bigger fix-up units (64 KB-256 KB) are acceptable, and justify the use of page protection techniques
31
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Results: Java Mutator Utilization Concern: Trapped fix-up cannot be controlled. If most pages are accessed all the time, the Java application, right after STW, will practically do nothing but Trapped fix-up We measured the portion of time spent on trapped fix-up in first 450 ms Acceptable Java utilization Reasonable Java utilization after 50..100 ms With 256 KB fix-up unit results are even better SPECjbb’s Java utilization in first 100 ms improves from 16% to 48%
32
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Results: Java Mutator Utilization Concern: Trapped fix-up cannot be controlled. If most pages are accessed all the time, the Java application, right after STW, will practically do nothing but fix-up We measured the portion of time spent on trapped fix-up in first 450 ms Acceptable Java utilization Reasonable Java utilization after 50..100 ms With 256 KB fix-up unit results are even better SPECjbb’s Java utilization in first 100 ms improves from 16% to 48%
33
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Outline Prologue – Commercial applications Mark Sweep (and Compact) GC Mostly Concurrent Compaction Overview The generic algorithm Our implementation Results Related work, conclusions and future directions
34
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Related Work Compaction techniques Jonkers, Morris - The threaded algorithm. 1978, 1979 Flood et al - Parallel garbage collection for shared memory multiprocessors. 2001 Sachindran and Moss - Mark Copy: Fast copying GC with less space overhead. 2003 Abuaiadh et al - An efficient parallel heap compaction algorithm. 2004 Incremental compaction Lang and Dupont - Incremental incrementally compacting garbage collection. 1987 Ben-Yitzhak et al. - An algorithm for parallel incremental compaction. 2002
35
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Related Work (cont.) Concurrent Copying collectors Baker - List processing in real-time on a serial computer. 1978 Brooks - Trading data space for reduced time and code space. 1984 Appel et al. - Real-time concurrent collection on stock multiprocessors. 1988 Fully concurrent compaction Larose and Feeley - A compacting incremental collector and its performance...1998 Bacon et al. - Controlling fragmentation and space consumption in the metronome. 2003 Use of page protection Appel et al. - Virtual memory primitives for user programs. 1991
36
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Conclusions A solution is proposed for bounding the pause time effect of compaction Mostly concurrent compaction: A generic solution suitable for Mark Sweep, and other GCs Method – partial Move in STW, concurrent Fix-up A Java implementation is presented, on top of IBM J9 JVM Minor pause time hit (less than 1/3 of the mark time) Highly efficient - No significant hit due to concurrent fix-up Improved performance with most benchmarks
37
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Future Directions Explore adaptive and sophisticated methods for: Triggering of the mostly concurrent compaction Choosing an optimal policy for selecting the parts to compact Minimize the costs of Trapped Fix-up, by performing “proactive” concurrent fix-up Fix the predicted next locations of access violations, rather than performing sequential pass of heap
38
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 End
39
IBM Labs in Haifa ISMM 2004 Java Mutator Utilization – The Mark Perspective 2000…
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.