[concurrency-interest] ThreadLocal vs ProcessorLocal

David Holmes davidcholmes at aapt.net.au
Fri Oct 12 07:43:04 EDT 2012


Hi Antoine,

I've not seen any sign that this has moved toward an actual API proposal so far. As the feature complete date for JDK 8 is January 31, I'd say the chances of any such API appearing in JDK 8 would be slim. But perhaps someone is fleshing this out quietly and will come forward with a fully worked out API design and implementation.

David
-------
  -----Original Message-----
  From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Antoine Chambille
  Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 10:44 PM
  To: Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
  Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] ThreadLocal vs ProcessorLocal


  After deploying the "ActivePivot" software (java in-memory analytics solution) on a new server we discovered how inefficient a large heap java application can be on NUMA system.


  The server has 4 sockets (8C Xeon CPU) with 512GB of memory. There are 4 NUMA nodes each with 8 cores and 128GB. ActivePivot loads large amounts of data in memory (up to hundreds of GB) and then performs complex aggregation queries over the entire data, using a global fork/join pool. Although the data structures are partitioned, this partitioning is random with respect to NUMA nodes and processors. There is a sharp performance drop compared to smaller SMP servers.




  We are considering launching several JVMs, each bound to NUMA nodes, and communicating with each other. But that's an entire new layer of code, and this won't be quite as performant as processor id partitioning in one JVM.


  I think that's another use case for the processor id API. I hope this RFE is making progress? Is there a chance to see it as part of JDK8?




  Regards,
  -Antoine CHAMBILLE
  Quartet FS








  On 19 August 2011 01:22, David Holmes <davidcholmes at aapt.net.au> wrote:

    Aside: Just for the public record. I think an API to support use of Processor sets would be a useful addition to the platform to allow better partitioning of CPU resources. The Real-time Specification for Java 1.1 under JSR-282 is looking at such an API primarily to work in with OS level processor sets. For our purposes, more locally within the JVM the processors made available to the JVM could be partitioned both internally (ie binding GC to a specific set of cores) and at the application/library level (such as allocating ForkJoinPools  disjoint sets of cores). The abiility to query the current processor ID is inherently needed and so I would make it part of the Processors class. This would provide the foundation API for ProcessortLocal.

    David Holmes
      -----Original Message-----
      From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Nathan Reynolds
      Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:38 AM
      To: concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
      Subject: [concurrency-interest] ThreadLocal vs ProcessorLocal


      I would like to recommend that we stripe data structures using a ProcessorLocal instead of ThreadLocal.  ProcessorLocal (attached) is exactly like ThreadLocal except the stored objects keyed off of the processor instead of the thread.  In order to implement ProcessorLocal, it needs an API that returns the current processor id that the thread is running on.  The HotSpot team has filed an RFE and are planning on providing such an API.  (Many of you are already aware of this.)

      I would like to share a story and some results to further the discussion on processor striping (i.e. ProcessorLocal).

      A long time ago, we found that an Oracle C++ program bottlenecked on a reader/writer lock.  Threads couldn't read-acquire the lock fast enough.  The problem was due to the contention on the cache line while executing the CAS instruction.  So, I striped the lock.  The code non-atomically incremented an int and masked it to select one of the reader/writer locks.  Multiple threads could end up selecting the same reader/writer lock because the int was incremented in an unprotected manner.  If multiple threads selected the same reader/writer lock, the lock would handle the concurrency and the only negative was lock performance.  This optimization worked great until Intel released Nehalem-EX.

      A while ago, Intel found on Nehalem-EX that the same Oracle C++ program didn't scale to the 4ᵗʰ Nehalem socket.  All of the processors/cores were 100% busy, but the throughput didn't improve by adding the 4ᵗʰ Nehalem socket.  The problem was the cores were fighting to get the cache line holding the unprotected int!

      I tried 4 approaches to select the reader/writer lock.

      1) Processor id - This performed the best.  The cache lines holding the reader/writer locks are almost never invalidated due to another core accessing the reader/writer lock.  In other words, almost 0 CAS contention.
      2) ThreadLocal - ThreadLocal had a 1:1 mapping of threads to locks.  It required too many locks and the locks had to migrate with the threads.
      3) Hash the stack pointer - Hashing the stack pointer caused some collisions but essentially randomly selected locks and this hurt cache performance.
      4) Shift and mask the cycle counter (i.e. rdtsc) - Contention was rare but again it randomly selected the locks.

      Compared to non-atomically incrementing an int, processor id resulted in 15% more throughput.  The other 3 only showed 5% more throughput.


      Nathan Reynolds | Consulting Member of Technical Staff | 602.333.9091
      Oracle PSR Engineering | Server Technology 



    _______________________________________________
    Concurrency-interest mailing list
    Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
    http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest







  -- 
  Antoine CHAMBILLE
  R&D Director
  Quartet FS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20121012/9c99c6de/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list