Uploaded image for project: 'Lucene - Core'
  1. Lucene - Core
  2. LUCENE-8780

Improve ByteBufferGuard in Java 11

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: master (9.0)
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: core/store
    • Labels:
    • Lucene Fields:
      New

      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 Michael McCandless or Robert Muir can do a comparison with nightly benchmarker?

      Have fun, maybe Dawid Weiss has some ideas, too.

        Attachments

        1. LUCENE-8780.patch
          6 kB
          Uwe Schindler

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                uschindler Uwe Schindler
                Reporter:
                uschindler Uwe Schindler
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                2 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:

                  Time Tracking

                  Estimated:
                  Original Estimate - Not Specified
                  Not Specified
                  Remaining:
                  Remaining Estimate - 0h
                  0h
                  Logged:
                  Time Spent - 10m
                  10m