lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-8780) Improve ByteBufferGuard in Java 11
Date Sat, 27 Apr 2019 13:50:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8780?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-8780:
----------------------------------
    Description: 
In LUCENE-7409 we added {{ByteBufferGuard}} to protect MMapDirectory from crushing the JVM
with SIGSEGV when you close and unmap the mmapped buffers of an IndexInput, while another
thread is accessing it.

The idea was to do a volatile write access to flush the caches (to trigger a full fence) and
set a non-volatile boolean to true. All accesses would check the boolean and stop the caller
from accessing the underlying ByteBuffer. This worked most of the time, until the JVM optimized
away the plain read access to the boolean (you can easily see this after some runtime of our
by-default ignored testcase).

With master on Java 11, we can improve the whole thing. Using VarHandles you can use any access
type when reading or writing the boolean. After reading Doug Lea's expanation <http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/j9mm.html>
and some testing, I was no longer able to crush my JDK (even after running for minutes unmapping
bytebuffers).

The apraoch is the same, we do a full-fenced write (standard volatile write) when we unmap,
then we yield the thread (to finish in-flight reads in other threads) and then unmap all byte
buffers.

On the test side (read access), instead of using a plain read, we use the new "opaque read".
Opaque reads are the same as plain reads, there are only different order requirements. Actually
the main difference is explained by Doug like this: "For example in constructions in which
the only modification of some variable x is for one thread to write in Opaque (or stronger)
mode, X.setOpaque(this, 1), any other thread spinning in while(X.getOpaque(this)!=1){} will
eventually terminate. Note that this guarantee does NOT hold in Plain mode, in which spin
loops may (and usually do) infinitely loop -- they are not required to notice that a write
ever occurred in another thread if it was not seen on first encounter." - And that's waht
we want to have: We don't want to do volatile reads, but we want to prevent the compiler from
optimizing away our read to the boolean. So we want it to "eventually" see the change. By
the much stronger volatile write, the cache effects should be visible even faster (like in
our Java 8 approach, just now we improved our read side).

The new code is much slimmer (theoretically we could also use a AtomicBoolean for that and
use the new method {{getOpaque()}}, but I wanted to prevent extra method calls, so I used
a VarHandle directly).

It's setup like this:
- The underlying boolean field is a private member (with unused SuppressWarnings, as its unused
by the java compiler), marked as volatile (that's the recommendation, but in reality it does
not matter at all).
- We create a VarHandle to access this boolean, we never do this directly (this is why the
volatile marking does not affect us).
- We use VarHandle.setVolatile() to change our "invalidated" boolean to "true", so enforcing
a full fence
- On the read side we use VarHandle.getOpaque() instead of VarHandle.get() (like in our old
code for Java 8).

I had to tune our test a bit, as the VarHandles make it take longer until it actually crushes
(as optimizations jump in later). I also used a random for the reads to prevent the optimizer
from removing all the bytebuffer reads. When we commit this, we can disable the test again
(it takes approx 50 secs on my machine).

I'd still like to see the differences between the plain read and the opaque read in production,
so maybe [~mikemccand] or [~rcmuir] can do a comparison with nightly benchmarker?

Have fun, maybe [~dweiss] has some ideas, too.

  was:
In LUCENE-7409 we added {{ByteBufferGuard}} to protect MMapDirectory from crushing the JVM
with SIGSEGV when you close and unmap the mmapped buffers of an IndexInput, while another
thread is accessing it.

The idea was to do a volatile write access to flush the caches (to trigger a full fence) and
set a non-volatile boolean to true. All accesses would check the boolean and stop the caller
from accessing the underlying ByteBuffer. This worked most of the time, until the JVM optimized
away the plain read access to the boolean (you can easily see this after some runtime of our
by-default ignored testcase).

With master on Java 11, we can improve the whole thing. Using VarHandles you can use any access
type when reading or writing the boolean. After reading Doug Lea's expanation <http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/j9mm.html>
and some testing, I was no longer able to crush my JDK (even after running for minutes unmapping
bytebuffers).

The apraoch is the same, we do a full-fenced write (standard volatile write) when we unmap,
then we yield the thread (to finish in-flight reads in other threads) and then unmap all byte
buffers.

On the test side (read access), instead of using a plain read, we use the new "opaque read".
Opaque reads are the same as plain reads, there are only different order requirements. Actually
the main difference is explained by Doug like this: "For example in constructions in which
the only modification of some variable x is for one thread to write in Opaque (or stronger)
mode, X.setOpaque(this, 1), any other thread spinning in while(X.getOpaque(this)!=1){} will
eventually terminate. Note that this guarantee does NOT hold in Plain mode, in which spin
loops may (and usually do) infinitely loop -- they are not required to notice that a write
ever occurred in another thread if it was not seen on first encounter." - And that's waht
we want to have: We don't want to do volatile reads, but we want to prevent the compiler from
optimizing away our read to the boolean. So we want it to "eventually" see the change. By
the much stronger volatile write, the cache effects should be visible even faster (like in
our Java 8 approach, jsut now we improved our read side).

The new code is much slimmer (theoretically we could also use a AtomicBoolean for that and
use the new method {{getOpaque()}}, but I wanted to prevent extra metod calls, so I used a
VarHandle directly.

It's setup like this:
- The underlying boolean is a private member (with unused suppress wanrings, as its unused
by the java compiler), marked as volatile (that's the recommendation, but in reality it does
not matter at all).
- We create a VarHandle to access this boolean, we never do this directly (this is why the
volatile marking does not affect us).
- We use VarHandle.setVolatile() to change out "invalidated" boolean to "true", so enforcing
a full fence
- On the read side we use VarHandle.getOpaque() instead of VarHandle.get() (as it would be
the effect of our old code in Java 8).

I had to tune our test a bit, as the VarHandles make it take longer until it actually crushes
(as optimizations jump in later). I also used a random for the reads to prevent the optimizer
from removing all the bytebuffer reads. When we commit this, we can disable the test again
(it takes approx 50 secs on my machine).

I'd still like to see the differences between the plain read and the opaque read in production,
so maybe [~mikemccand] or [~rcmuir] can do a comparison with nightly benchmarker?

Have fun, maybe [~dweiss] has some ideas, too.


> Improve ByteBufferGuard in Java 11
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-8780
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8780
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/store
>    Affects Versions: master (9.0)
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: LUCENE-8780.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-7409 we added {{ByteBufferGuard}} to protect MMapDirectory from crushing the
JVM with SIGSEGV when you close and unmap the mmapped buffers of an IndexInput, while another
thread is accessing it.
> The idea was to do a volatile write access to flush the caches (to trigger a full fence)
and set a non-volatile boolean to true. All accesses would check the boolean and stop the
caller from accessing the underlying ByteBuffer. This worked most of the time, until the JVM
optimized away the plain read access to the boolean (you can easily see this after some runtime
of our by-default ignored testcase).
> With master on Java 11, we can improve the whole thing. Using VarHandles you can use
any access type when reading or writing the boolean. After reading Doug Lea's expanation <http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/j9mm.html>
and some testing, I was no longer able to crush my JDK (even after running for minutes unmapping
bytebuffers).
> The apraoch is the same, we do a full-fenced write (standard volatile write) when we
unmap, then we yield the thread (to finish in-flight reads in other threads) and then unmap
all byte buffers.
> On the test side (read access), instead of using a plain read, we use the new "opaque
read". Opaque reads are the same as plain reads, there are only different order requirements.
Actually the main difference is explained by Doug like this: "For example in constructions
in which the only modification of some variable x is for one thread to write in Opaque (or
stronger) mode, X.setOpaque(this, 1), any other thread spinning in while(X.getOpaque(this)!=1){}
will eventually terminate. Note that this guarantee does NOT hold in Plain mode, in which
spin loops may (and usually do) infinitely loop -- they are not required to notice that a
write ever occurred in another thread if it was not seen on first encounter." - And that's
waht we want to have: We don't want to do volatile reads, but we want to prevent the compiler
from optimizing away our read to the boolean. So we want it to "eventually" see the change.
By the much stronger volatile write, the cache effects should be visible even faster (like
in our Java 8 approach, just now we improved our read side).
> The new code is much slimmer (theoretically we could also use a AtomicBoolean for that
and use the new method {{getOpaque()}}, but I wanted to prevent extra method calls, so I used
a VarHandle directly).
> It's setup like this:
> - The underlying boolean field is a private member (with unused SuppressWarnings, as
its unused by the java compiler), marked as volatile (that's the recommendation, but in reality
it does not matter at all).
> - We create a VarHandle to access this boolean, we never do this directly (this is why
the volatile marking does not affect us).
> - We use VarHandle.setVolatile() to change our "invalidated" boolean to "true", so enforcing
a full fence
> - On the read side we use VarHandle.getOpaque() instead of VarHandle.get() (like in our
old code for Java 8).
> I had to tune our test a bit, as the VarHandles make it take longer until it actually
crushes (as optimizations jump in later). I also used a random for the reads to prevent the
optimizer from removing all the bytebuffer reads. When we commit this, we can disable the
test again (it takes approx 50 secs on my machine).
> I'd still like to see the differences between the plain read and the opaque read in production,
so maybe [~mikemccand] or [~rcmuir] can do a comparison with nightly benchmarker?
> Have fun, maybe [~dweiss] has some ideas, too.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message