Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Performance bug in the concurrent compiler (class ProcessTaskManager) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Markus Gaisbauer <markus.gaisbauer> | ||||||
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | Tomasz Zarna <tomasz.zarna> | ||||||
| Status: | VERIFIED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | daniel_megert, jarthana, markus.kell.r, Olivier_Thomann, srikanth_sankaran | ||||||
| Version: | 3.6 | Keywords: | performance | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | 4.3 M1 | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Markus Gaisbauer
Created attachment 166854 [details]
Proposed patch: Use a simple blocking queue
Srikanth, please take a look. Created attachment 166857 [details]
Reproduce problem with this project
Run CodeGenerator.java
Refresh project
Clean build a couple of times.
On my machine compilation takes ~81 seconds with Eclipse 3.6 M7. With the proposed patch compilation takes ~2s.
(In reply to comment #2) > Srikanth, please take a look. Will do. What timeframe did you have in mind ? The numbers look very neat if can be sustained, it is a bit too close for comfort for 3.6. Markus, this is the bug report I mentioned at the JDT call. Srikanth, If we believe this patch is rock solid, I would be tempted to release for 3.6. But we need a careful review of it. (In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=166857) [details] > Reproduce problem with this project > > Run CodeGenerator.java > Refresh project > Clean build a couple of times. > > On my machine compilation takes ~81 seconds with Eclipse 3.6 M7. With the > proposed patch compilation takes ~2s. Perhaps this is a Linux specific thing: On my otherwise idle dual core Windows XP SP2, I actually see a degradation. HEAD version takes on average (over 4 runs) about ~17 seconds wall clock time to compile these generated files, while with the patch it takes on average about ~20 seconds, a 18% slow down. I'll try on JDT/Core workspace itself as a second data point shortly. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Created an attachment (id=166857) [details] [details] > > Reproduce problem with this project > I'll try on JDT/Core workspace itself as a second data point shortly. With the patch I get about ~35 seconds (ignoring the wild variation in the first run in each case) and without ~36. All wall clock. I'll also turn on the internal timers and gather data programatically. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > Created an attachment (id=166857) [details] [details] [details] > > > Reproduce problem with this project > > > I'll try on JDT/Core workspace itself as a second data point shortly. > > With the patch I get about ~35 seconds (ignoring the wild variation in the > first run in each case) and without ~36. All wall clock. > > I'll also turn on the internal timers and gather data programatically. By turning on the timers in org.eclipse.jdt.internal.core.builder.JavaBuilder.build(int, Map, IProgressMonitor), I observe a 4% degradation in both cases (JDT/Core dev workspace + repro scenario in this bug). As before first runs were ignored in each case, clean operation times are not included and results were averaged over three runs each. The timers are based on System.currentTimeMillis() I don't have a Linux desktop to validate the numbers there. Olivier, if you run Linux or have a Linux box readily accessible let me know if you can run these experiments there, otherwise, I will try and organize it here. I'll run the JDT/Core tests with this patch anyways and as well take a peek at the changes. Thanks for testing my patch on Windows. I think it's quite interesting that Linux and Windows behave so differently here. I will try to find out what is going on. (In reply to comment #8) > I don't have a Linux desktop to validate the numbers there. Olivier, > if you run Linux or have a Linux box readily accessible let me know > if you can run these experiments there, otherwise, I will try and > organize it here. I have a VMWare image of Linux Redhat 5. I'll give it a try. For me, the patch makes it slower. On my WinXP machine (with SSD drive = low latency, but just a Core Duo processor), I have ~20s without the patch, but with the patch, I need ~25s to compile comment 3 (warm measurements, i.e. startup, clean, build, clean, measure build). Compiling org.eclipse.jdt.ui takes about the same time with and without the patch. Markus G., did you make sure you tested the two cases under equal conditions? File system caches can make a huge difference here, especially under Linux, which is known to have a good caching strategy. > Markus G., did you make sure you tested the two cases under equal conditions?
> File system caches can make a huge difference here, especially under Linux,
> which is known to have a good caching strategy.
Yes, I did make sure that both cases were tested with a full cache. The file system cache is much faster under Linux and this seems to be one of the reasons why the current code performs so badly under Linux.
I can verify, that my reproducer does not show the described problem most of the time. Slow IO operations (mostly opening files) make one of the threads slower under Windows and therefore change the concurrent behaviour of the code.
In order to show this in numbers, I instrumented the code in such a way, that it prints the number of times that the "wait" calls time out rather than waking up after being notified by the other thread. Here is the result for a typical run under Linux and Windows.
Linux:
371 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 149 timeouts in addNextUnit
407 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 163 timeouts in addNextUnit
190 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 76 timeouts in addNextUnit
98828 ms
Windows:
0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit
0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit
0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit
5348 ms
Compiling 6232 JDT Core files is fast even under Linux (and much faster than compiling the 5000 empty classes of the reproducer). 2 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 9 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 1 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 9 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 0 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 1 timeouts in removeNextUnit, 0 timeouts in addNextUnit 13594 ms Are you also using a SSD drive on Windows ? (In reply to comment #14) > Are you also using a SSD drive on Windows ? No, the numbers posted my last 2 comments were observed on a Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz 8 GB RAM 640 GB 7200rpm HDD Ubuntu 10.04 (EXT4, 64 bit) / Windows 7 RC (NTFS, 64 bit) Satyam, can you please follow up on this for 3.6.1 ? Thanks! Has the described problem already been addressed in Eclipse 3.7? (In reply to comment #17) > Has the described problem already been addressed in Eclipse 3.7? Not yet. There is a small performance regression on Windows :( Tomek, More punishment for the good work in bug 383798: Could you follow up on this after the various bugs that you are working on in different stages ? Patch needs to be thoroughly reviewed, tested and modified so we don't see any degradation on windows. M1/M2 would be a good time in general to consider introducing changes that could carry some risk with them. (In reply to comment #1) > Created attachment 166854 [details] > Proposed patch: Use a simple blocking queue Pushed to Gerrit as https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/6915/1 (In reply to comment #19) > Could you follow up on this after the various bugs that you are working on in different > stages ? Sure, will have a look at this once my tasks list gets a little bit shorter. I can confirm the performance regression on WinXp with the patch applied, see my latest comment on Gerrit. (In reply to comment #21) > I can confirm the performance regression on WinXp with the patch applied, > see my latest comment on Gerrit. Thanks, so this pretty much seems established with yet another data point. I would try to see if the numbers mentioned in comment#0 is are reproducible and if they are - we could conditionally implement the new behavior for Linux selectively. However, I would take this approach only if the numbers are very good and if the changes are clean and safe. (In reply to comment #22) > I would try to see if the numbers mentioned in comment#0 is are reproducible I have been running our perf tests on a Linux box for whole day (collected 120 samples for each case) and the numbers look bad: testScanner +18,26% testParser +7,48% testFullBuildDefault +35,79% testFullBuildProjectNoWarning +34,1% testFullBuildProjectDefault +30,82% testFullBuildProjectAllWarnings +29,54% testBatchCompilerNoWarning +47,58% testCompileJDTCoreProjectNoWarning +49,62% testCompileJDTCoreProjectDefault +49,16% testCompileJDTCoreProjectJavadoc +48,6% testCompileJDTCoreProjectAllWarnings +45,49% testCompileSWTProjectDefault +68,51% testBuildGenericType +0,73% Markus G, am I missing something obvious here? A specific VM for example. Have you run those tests with the patch? (In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > > I would try to see if the numbers mentioned in comment#0 is are reproducible > > I have been running our perf tests on a Linux box for whole day (collected > 120 samples for each case) and the numbers look bad: Thanks Tom. At the moment, this looks headed to a WONTFIX resolution. Closing as WONTFIX. Verified for 4.3 M1 |