The GC should be able to reflect upon its pipeline of work

• Component: JavaScriptCore
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[Filip Pizlo]

Patch forthcoming.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 297409 [details]
a little something like this

Work in progress.

[Filip Pizlo]

Comment on attachment 297409 [details]
a little something like this

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=297409&action=review

> Source/JavaScriptCore/heap/SpaceTimeScheduler.cpp:22
> - * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
> + * (INCLUDING NEGfLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE

Oops.  Reverted.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 297442 [details]
a bit more

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 297678 [details]
so fun

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 297865 [details]
more

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 297909 [details]
the patch

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Attachment 297909 [details] did not pass style-queue:


ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/heap/MarkingConstraint.cpp:38:  Code inside a namespace should not be indented.  [whitespace/indent] [4]
ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/heap/MarkingConstraint.cpp:38:  Wrong number of spaces before statement. (expected: 8)  [whitespace/indent] [4]
ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/heap/MarkingConstraint.cpp:39:  Wrong number of spaces before statement. (expected: 8)  [whitespace/indent] [4]
ERROR: Source/JavaScriptCore/heap/MarkingConstraint.cpp:40:  Wrong number of spaces before statement. (expected: 8)  [whitespace/indent] [4]
Total errors found: 4 in 25 files


If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

[Filip Pizlo]

Comment on attachment 297909 [details]
the patch

Ooops, did not mean to set r?

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298173 [details]
more

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298202 [details]
it compiles!

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298216 [details]
seems to work sorta

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298232 [details]
even more

This is getting fun.

[Radar WebKit Bug Importer]

<rdar://problem/29909896>

[Filip Pizlo]

The initial implementation boosted splay-latency but hurt on retreating wavefront worst-case pathologies like hash-map, because the only scheduler was a tad bit quicker to choose a longer pause.  It looks like the old scheduler was getting luckier on hash-map, but was still having a bad time - lots of wasted iterations before finishing a GC cycle.

I'm now adding some exponential backoff to the space-time scheduler.  This appears to preserve the patch's advantage on splay-latency while also progressing hash-map.

Ultimately, the goal of this patch is to create a framework that can be more easily extended, since it doesn't hide the cost of constraint evaluation from the scheduler.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298250 [details]
giving up on the new scheduler

Going to go back to the old scheduler.  The new one is empirically worse.

[Filip Pizlo]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Created attachment 298250 [details]
> giving up on the new scheduler
> 
> Going to go back to the old scheduler.  The new one is empirically worse.

I should clarify: the same configuration that led to better splay-latency performance also killed Speedometer performance.  We don't want that.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 298280 [details]
reverted to the old scheduling algorithm

I think that what made the old scheduling algorithm so effective is that its decisions were so time-driven. It stayed in phase except when we "snapped" phase after a round of constraint solving. This meant that if we encountered jank while in some mode (resumed or suspended) and overran our budget then the scheduler would degrade to something like a coin flip. It turns out that having this kind of non-determinism is _good_ for the GC, since it protects us from many run-away scenarios. For example if a deterministic scheduler encounters a huge object, then we'd yield to mutator unless the scheduler had some mechanism to detect this case.

Altogether it seems that the good things about the old scheduler are:
- Eventually stop-the-world, which we arrive at somewhat elastically.
- Periodic stop-the-world increments that have a chance of getting lucky and declaring termination.
- Prioritize collector progress. In a retreating wavefront collector, the mutator has the speed advantage - so we need to give the collector some unfair advantage.
- Allow constraint solving to take as long as it needs to take to generate work.
- Degrade to coin flip when we encounter jank.

I can't easily think of another scheduling algorithm that achieves these things while staying so simple. Every time I've tried to dramatically change this scheduler, I've gotten regressions all over the place. I think I'll stick to making only incremental improvements. Probably if I do come back to improving the scheduler, then I'll try to make the scheduler's period adapt to the time it took to run constraints. We should use a longer period when we took longer to run constraints so that the mutator has more time to itself.

[Filip Pizlo]

(In reply to comment #17)
> Created attachment 298280 [details]
> reverted to the old scheduling algorithm
> 
> I think that what made the old scheduling algorithm so effective is that its
> decisions were so time-driven. It stayed in phase except when we "snapped"
> phase after a round of constraint solving. This meant that if we encountered
> jank while in some mode (resumed or suspended) and overran our budget then
> the scheduler would degrade to something like a coin flip. It turns out that
> having this kind of non-determinism is _good_ for the GC, since it protects
> us from many run-away scenarios. For example if a deterministic scheduler
> encounters a huge object, then we'd yield to mutator unless the scheduler
> had some mechanism to detect this case.
> 
> Altogether it seems that the good things about the old scheduler are:
> - Eventually stop-the-world, which we arrive at somewhat elastically.
> - Periodic stop-the-world increments that have a chance of getting lucky and
> declaring termination.
> - Prioritize collector progress. In a retreating wavefront collector, the
> mutator has the speed advantage - so we need to give the collector some
> unfair advantage.
> - Allow constraint solving to take as long as it needs to take to generate
> work.
> - Degrade to coin flip when we encounter jank.
> 
> I can't easily think of another scheduling algorithm that achieves these
> things while staying so simple. Every time I've tried to dramatically change
> this scheduler, I've gotten regressions all over the place. I think I'll
> stick to making only incremental improvements. Probably if I do come back to
> improving the scheduler, then I'll try to make the scheduler's period adapt
> to the time it took to run constraints. We should use a longer period when
> we took longer to run constraints so that the mutator has more time to
> itself.

Still testing this new scheduler... so far I just confirmed that it does the right things on splay and hash-map.

[Filip Pizlo]

The patch is actually fixing this and its parent bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 165910 ***