Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-8207266

ThreadMXBean::getThreadAllocatedBytes() can be quicker for self thread



    • Type: Enhancement
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: P4
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 10
    • Fix Version/s: 14
    • Component/s: core-svc
    • Labels:



        markus.gaisbauer@gmail.com posted this:

        On 7/13/18 12:35 PM, Markus Gaisbauer wrote:
        > Hello,
        > I am trying to use ThreadMXBean::getThreadAllocatedBytes (com.sun.management) to get the amount of allocated memory of the current thread in some performance critical code.
        > Unfortunately, the current implementation can be rather slow and the duration of each call unpredictable. I ran a test in a JVM with 500 threads. Depending on which thread was queried, getThreadAllocatedBytes took between 100 ns and 2500 ns.
        > The root cause of the problem is ThreadsList::find_JavaThread_from_java_tid which performs a linear scan through all Java threads in the current process. The more threads a JVM has, the slower it gets. In the worst case, the thread with the given TID is found as the last entry in the list.
        > Before Java 10, the oldest thread is the slowest one to query.
        > Since Java 10, the youngest thread is the slowest one to query. I think this was a side effect of introducing "Thread Safe Memory Reclamation (Thread-SMR) support".
        > Oldest Thread Youngest Thread
        > Java 8 8740 ns 76 ns
        > Java 10 109 ns 2485 ns
        > A common use case is to query the metric for the current thread (e.g. before and after performing some operation). This case can be optimized by introducing a new method: getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes.
        > I created a patch for http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/ and by using the new method I saw the following improvements in my test:
        > Oldest Thread Youngest Thread
        > Proposal 37 ns 37 ns
        > This is a 60x improvement over the worst case of the current API. In the best case of the current API, the new method is still 3 times faster.
        > // based on JVM_SetNativeThreadName in jvm.cpp.
        > JVM_ENTRY(jlong, jmm_GetCurrentThreadAllocatedMemory(JNIEnv *env, jobject currentThread))
        > // We don't use a ThreadsListHandle here because the current thread
        > // must be alive.
        > oop java_thread = JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(currentThread);
        > JavaThread* thr = java_lang_Thread::thread(java_thread);
        > if (thread == thr) {
        > // only supported for the current thread
        > return thr->cooked_allocated_bytes();
        > }
        > return -1;
        > JVM_END
        > The proposed method also fixes the problem, that getThreadAllocatedBytes itself allocates some memory on the current thread (two long arrays, 24 bytes) and therefore can slightly skew measurements. The new method, getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes, returns exactly the same value if it is called twice without allocating any memory between those calls.
        > I also built a variation of this method that could be used to query allocated memory more efficiently for anyone who already has a java.lang.Thread object:
        > JVM_ENTRY(jlong, jmm_GetThreadAllocatedMemory(JNIEnv *env, jobject threadObj))
        > // based on code proposed in threadSMR.hpp
        > ThreadsListHandle tlh;
        > JavaThread* thr = NULL;
        > bool is_alive = tlh.cv_internal_thread_to_JavaThread(threadObj, &thr, NULL);
        > if (is_alive) {
        > return thr->cooked_allocated_bytes();
        > }
        > return -1;
        > JVM_END
        > This method took 70 ns in my test, which is 85% slower than GetCurrentThreadAllocatedMemory but still 30% faster than the best case of the current API. I currently have no immediate need for this second method, but I think it would also be a valueable addition to the API.
        > I attached a patch for getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes. I can create a second patch for also adding getThreadAllocatedMemory(java.lang.Thread) to the API.
        > I am a first time contributor and I am not 100% sure what process I must follow to get a change like this into OpenJDK. Can someone have a look at my proposal and help me through the process?
        > Best regards,
        > Markus


            Issue Links



                phh Paul Hohensee
                dcubed Daniel Daugherty
                1 Vote for this issue
                3 Start watching this issue