ahhh, for some reason I missed that. Sorry guys...

In that case there's probably not much we can do. The only missing bit is what to do with JBCACHE-1625?

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Sebastian Laskawiec
<slaskawi@redhat.com> wrote:
> I think we reached the point where we mention the same arguments over and
> over again...
>
> So let me try to sum it up and possibly iron an action plan out:
>
> The main reason we cache the "isTraceEnabled" value is speed. It's more than
> 3 times faster then checking it before each trace invocation.

Actually, if you look at the the assembly code in const.txt, all the
assembly instructions are from JMH itself, not from the test method.
So caching in a static final is "infinitely faster", not just 3 times
faster.

> This decreases maintainability since we can't change the logging level in
> runtime. Dennis filed a JIRA for it:
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBCACHE-1625

We can change the logging level to DEBUG at runtime, which I would
argue is enough in most cases.

> It doesn't matter which logging backend we use (JDK, JBoss etc).
> The main problem is the "translate" method in logger, which translates JBoss
> Logging levels into backend's native levels. The "translate" method is used
> for all logging levels (since "doLogf" method checks "isEnabled" method
> result, which in turn calls "translate").
> As shown on benchmarks with JIT activity, there are two reasons why
> "translate" method is not inlined - it's too big and it contains a switch
> statement.
>

Hmmm, I thought the assembly listing in tracef.txt showed that it *is*
inlined :)

> If you agree with the above, I would like to propose the following action
> plan:
>
> @Dennis - please move the JBCACHE-1625 to Infinispan project and assign it
> to me.
> @James - I would like to ask you to experiment with optimizing these
> methods. It would be great if both "translate" and "isEnabled" methods could
> be inlined. I would be more than happy to verify if it works in both my
> private benchmarks and if that goes well, with Infinispan stress tests.
>

IMO there are way too many TRACE logs in the core, and I don't think
we can avoid affecting performance without removing 80% of them. And I
also think the time spent arguing about this would have been better
spent trying to fix some of the random failures in the test suite,
i.e. the thing that the excessive TRACE logs are supposed to help us
with :)

Cheers
Dan


> Thanks
> Sebastian
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Dennis Reed <dereed@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2016 08:43 AM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>> > Aren't we investing a bit too much time to this? The trace level was
>> > cached for ages, has anyone ever complained?
>>
>> I have.  https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBCACHE-1625
>>
>> Looks like I just never copied it over to the ISPN JIRA.  :)
>>
>> > Turning on trace level is completely impractical in production,
>>
>> We do it all the time when there's no better option to debug an issue.
>> (generally for as short a period as possible if it's production)
>>
>> -Dennis
>>
>> > but that info (or, I'd say 80% of
>> > that) is very useful when debugging race conditions etc., so it makes
>> > sense to keep it there and reduce the cost to minimum.
>> >
>> > My 2c
>> >
>> > Radim
>> >
>> > On 10/03/2016 03:25 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne@infinispan.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> I've not looked at any such details but I always  assumed that since
>> >>> the
>> >>> logger frameworks (any of them) need to be able to change the logging
>> >>> level,
>> >>> there must be some way of switching state - at least a volatile read?
>> >>>
>> >>> And while that could be very cheap, I doubt it would be as easily
>> >>> optimised
>> >>> as a constant.
>> >>>
>> >> True, at some point you need a volatile read -- you can only avoid
>> >> that by caching isTraceEnabled(), like we do in Infinispan.
>> >>
>> >> My point was related to this assembly instruction, which reads the
>> >> ordinal of Level.TRACE:
>> >>
>> >> 0x00007f93951e9fdf: mov rdi,0x76d4e6d48  ;   {oop(a
>> >> 'org/jboss/logging/Logger$Level')}
>> >> 0x00007f93951e9fe9: mov ebp  << missing an operand here >>; -
>> >> java.lang.Enum::ordinal@1 (line 103)
>> >>                               ; -
>> >> org.jboss.logging.JBossLogManagerLogger::translate@8 (line 58)
>> >>                               ; -
>> >> org.jboss.logging.JBossLogManagerLogger::isEnabled@5 (line 35)
>> >>                               ; - org.jboss.logging.Logger::tracef@4
>> >> (line 287)
>> >>                               ; - org.infinispan.MyBenchmark::tracef@7
>> >> (line 26)
>> >>                               ; -
>> >>
>> >> org.infinispan.generated.MyBenchmark_tracef_jmhTest::tracef_thrpt_jmhStub@15
>> >> (line 113)
>> >>
>> >> In an ideal world, the JIT would replace translate(Level.TRACE) with a
>> >> constant. But here, even though `0x76d4e6d48` is clearly a constant,
>> >> the ordinal is still loaded and checked every time.
>> >>
>> >>> Since we might not be interested only in the logger method to be
>> >>> inlined, we
>> >>> also want most of the client methods to be considered for inlining..
>> >>> some of
>> >>> these can be extremely sensitive so such a decision requires a full
>> >>> Infinispan performance test rather than a microbenchmark. (which is
>> >>> useful
>> >>> too but more for the sake of optimising JBoss Logging, not to proof if
>> >>> it's
>> >>> OK to switch all of Infinispan 's internal conventions)
>> >>>
>> >> Based on the testing both myself and Radim did WRT inlining, it
>> >> doesn't make a huge difference. But I agree 100% that before removing
>> >> the isTraceEnabled() caching we'd have to benchmark the whole of
>> >> Infinispan, and not just JBoss Logging in isolation.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Dan
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, 13:45 Sebastian Laskawiec, <slaskawi@redhat.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Awesome Dan! May I ask for a Pull Request:
>> >>>> https://github.com/slaskawi/jboss-logging-perf-test?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi Sebastian
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I modified your benchmark so that the logger and the trace field are
>> >>>>> static final and looked at the generated assembly with JITWatch [1].
>> >>>>> Based on the attached assembly listings, caching isTraceEnabled() in
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> constant field is "infinitely faster", because there are no assembly
>> >>>>> instructions that can be traced back to the test method.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> JBossLogManagerLogger::translate() is inlined in this listing, but
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>> still goes through the switch machinery, I'm guessing because the
>> >>>>> ordinal of an Enum is not considered a constant.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>> Dan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [1]: https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/jitwatch
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Sebastian Laskawiec
>> >>>>> <slaskawi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Hey!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please have a look at the latest perf test results [1][2]:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Benchmark                             Mode  Cnt           Score
>> >>>>>> Error  Units
>> >>>>>> MyBenchmark.noVariable               thrpt   20   681131269.875 ±
>> >>>>>> 3961932.923  ops/s
>> >>>>>> MyBenchmark.withIsTraceEnabledCheck  thrpt   20   676307984.921 ±
>> >>>>>> 14305970.393  ops/s
>> >>>>>> MyBenchmark.withVariable             thrpt   20  2411000894.582 ±
>> >>>>>> 17382438.635  ops/s
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think there is no surprise here.. using a field, which stores the
>> >>>>>> result
>> >>>>>> of `logger.isTraceEnabled()` evaluation is 3 times faster than
>> >>>>>> other
>> >>>>>> options.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If anyone is interested in printing out JIT stuff, I also ran it
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> "-XX:+PrintCompilation", "-XX:+PrintCompilation2" and
>> >>>>>> "-XX:+PrintInlining"
>> >>>>>> here [3].
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'm not a performance expert but it seems that JIT could not inline
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> "translate" method because of its size (see line 1861). However it
>> >>>>>> tried
>> >>>>>> several times with different optimizations (and some of them were
>> >>>>>> thrown
>> >>>>>> away - "made not entrant" messages [4]).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Let's wait for James' opinion on this, but I think we should
>> >>>>>> address
>> >>>>>> this
>> >>>>>> issue on JBoss Logging/LogManager side (so I agree with David here)
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> make
>> >>>>>> those parts inlinable (wow, does this word even exist? :D). Once
>> >>>>>> this
>> >>>>>> is
>> >>>>>> done, we could experiment further in Infinispan codebase and see
>> >>>>>> how
>> >>>>>> this
>> >>>>>> relates to some real world benchmarks...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>>> Sebastian
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>> https://gist.github.com/slaskawi/6766b6e17c7a28ac8d8962293c48a53c
>> >>>>>> [2] Test repository:
>> >>>>>> https://github.com/slaskawi/jboss-logging-perf-test
>> >>>>>> [3]
>> >>>>>> https://gist.github.com/slaskawi/6f317bb05539611434bc91d66924bae0
>> >>>>>> [4]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/java-performance-the/9781449363512/ch04.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Sebastian Laskawiec
>> >>>>>> <slaskawi@redhat.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hey!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Adding James to this thread.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> @Dennis - I think Dan has a point here. The trick with checking a
>> >>>>>>> field in
>> >>>>>>> a class is 3 times faster. Most of the checks are done in core so
>> >>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> executed multiple times per operation. Changing all those places
>> >>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>> probably
>> >>>>>>> not an option.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> @David - Let me run a test with JBoss Log Manager and get back to
>> >>>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>> some results. But if Dan is right, and the problem is with enum
>> >>>>>>> mapping, I
>> >>>>>>> will get similar results.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>>>> Sebastian
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Dan Berindei
>> >>>>>>> <dan.berindei@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:15 PM, David M. Lloyd
>> >>>>>>>> <david.lloyd@redhat.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> The performance problem that this trick is meant to resolve is
>> >>>>>>>>> really a
>> >>>>>>>>> problem in the logging backend.  It *should* be faster inside of
>> >>>>>>>>> WildFly, where JBoss LogManager is used, because that project
>> >>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>> checks a single volatile field for the level check... and the
>> >>>>>>>>> path
>> >>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> that code *should* be inline-friendly.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, we started using this trick because of log4j 1.2, which
>> >>>>>>>> needs
>> >>>>>>>> to walk the logger hierarchy in order to check the level, and it
>> >>>>>>>> made
>> >>>>>>>> a significant difference there.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Nowadays I think it's pretty close to optimal in all logging
>> >>>>>>>> frameworks. The only nitpick is that they all use enums for the
>> >>>>>>>> levels, and the JIT can't inline Level.TRACE.value as it would
>> >>>>>>>> with a
>> >>>>>>>> Level.TRACE_VALUE int constant. If JDK9 fixes that, then it's
>> >>>>>>>> going
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> be more or less equivalent to using a volatile "trace" field in
>> >>>>>>>> each
>> >>>>>>>> class, so it should be suitable even for local read operations
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> take < 200ns.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> We'd probably still need to weed out some of the trace messages,
>> >>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>> probably have more than 10 of them during such a read operation.
>> >>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>> confess that I added way too many trace logs myself, precisely
>> >>>>>>>> because
>> >>>>>>>> I knew we are using a static final field and the JIT compiler
>> >>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>> even generate code for that branch.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>>>>> Dan
>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >>>>>>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >>>>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >>>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev