I'm studying Spring and Hibernate and the IDE I'm using is Eclipse (after years of using IntelliJ) but the thing is, every time I attempt to install Eclipse ether by using the installer or just downloading Eclipse JEE I come a across an installation error and can't move forward.
Here is the stacktrace of the error.
PS: I've been investigating and can't find anything related.
/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
Process: eclipse-inst [4686]
Path: /Volumes/VOLUME/Eclipse Installer.app/Contents/MacOS/eclipse-inst
Identifier: org.eclipse.oomph.setup.installer.product
Version: 1.17.0 (1.17.0.v20200610-0514)
Code Type: X86-64 (Native)
Parent Process: ??? [1]
Responsible: eclipse-inst [4686]
User ID: 501
Date/Time: 2020-08-14 08:06:40.452 -0400
OS Version: Mac OS X 10.16 (20A5343j)
Report Version: 12
Bridge OS Version: 5.0 (18P50347c)
Anonymous UUID: 4148D75A-3E08-F11D-ECE7-4B3A70E9672E
Sleep/Wake UUID: 912A59C5-0BFE-4085-94F6-2AB8CB24A2AF
Time Awake Since Boot: 14000 seconds
Time Since Wake: 1000 seconds
System Integrity Protection: enabled
Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
Exception Type: EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION (SIGILL)
Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000001, 0x0000000000000000
Exception Note: EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY
Termination Signal: Illegal instruction: 4
Termination Reason: Namespace SIGNAL, Code 0x4
Terminating Process: exc handler [4686]
Application Specific Information:
*** CFRelease() called with NULL ***
Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
0 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x00007fff297f593e CFRelease.cold.1 + 14
1 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x00007fff2965110f CFRelease + 108
2 com.apple.JavaVM 0x00007fff2e436c61 MakeMatcher + 406
3 com.apple.JavaVM 0x00007fff2e435804 CreateJVMDetector + 38
4 com.apple.JavaVM 0x00007fff2e4375eb CheckForInstalledJavaRuntimes + 43
5 dyld 0x0000000015bcbebd ImageLoaderMachO::doModInitFunctions(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) + 559
6 dyld 0x0000000015bcc2b8 ImageLoaderMachO::doInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) + 40
7 dyld 0x0000000015bc6e78 ImageLoader::recursiveInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, unsigned int, char const*, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&, ImageLoader::UninitedUpwards&) + 492
8 dyld 0x0000000015bc4d90 ImageLoader::processInitializers(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, unsigned int, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&, ImageLoader::UninitedUpwards&) + 188
9 dyld 0x0000000015bc4e30 ImageLoader::runInitializers(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) + 82
10 dyld 0x0000000015bb6261 dyld::runInitializers(ImageLoader*) + 82
11 dyld 0x0000000015bc0769 dlopen_internal + 609
12 libdyld.dylib 0x00007fff6aa3826f dlopen_internal(char const*, int, void*) + 177
13 libdyld.dylib 0x00007fff6aa2690e dlopen + 28
14 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x00007fff296ed352 _CFBundleDlfcnLoadBundle + 147
15 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x00007fff29765ada _CFBundleLoadExecutableAndReturnError + 503
16 com.apple.CoreFoundation 0x00007fff2972db6e CFBundleGetFunctionPointerForName + 39
17 eclipse_1902.so 0x000000000df7a62e findSymbol + 62
18 eclipse_1902.so 0x000000000df78679 startJavaJNI + 89
19 eclipse_1902.so 0x000000000df74f44 _run + 5732
20 eclipse_1902.so 0x000000000df734c0 run + 432
21 org.eclipse.oomph.setup.installer.product 0x000000000de689f7 original_main + 1319
22 org.eclipse.oomph.setup.installer.product 0x000000000de693a7 main + 1655
23 libdyld.dylib 0x00007fff6aa36851 start + 1
Thread 1:
0 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff6ac6e4b4 start_wqthread + 0
Thread 2:
0 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff6ac6e4b4 start_wqthread + 0
Thread 3:
0 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff6ac6e4b4 start_wqthread + 0
Thread 4:
0 libsystem_pthread.dylib 0x00007fff6ac6e4b4 start_wqthread + 0
Thread 0 crashed with X86 Thread State (64-bit):
rax: 0x00007fff29a06bc2 rbx: 0x0000000000000000 rcx: 0x0000000000000055 rdx: 0x0000000000000000
rdi: 0x0000000000000000 rsi: 0x00007ffee1d957f8 rbp: 0x00007ffee1d957d0 rsp: 0x00007ffee1d957c8
r8: 0x00000000000000a9 r9: 0x00000000000007fb r10: 0x0000000000002520 r11: 0x0000000000000060
r12: 0x0000000000000000 r13: 0x00006000026c8410 r14: 0x00006000039c8000 r15: 0x00006000008e9b40
rip: 0x00007fff297f593e rfl: 0x0000000000010246 cr2: 0x00006000013fa008
Logical CPU: 0
Error Code: 0x00000000
Trap Number: 6
External Modification Summary:
Calls made by other processes targeting this process:
task_for_pid: 0
thread_create: 0
thread_set_state: 0
Calls made by this process:
task_for_pid: 0
thread_create: 0
thread_set_state: 0
Calls made by all processes on this machine:
task_for_pid: 18440
thread_create: 0
thread_set_state: 0
VM Region Summary:
ReadOnly portion of Libraries: Total=657.9M resident=0K(0%) swapped_out_or_unallocated=657.9M(100%)
Writable regions: Total=620.9M written=0K(0%) resident=0K(0%) swapped_out=0K(0%) unallocated=620.9M(100%)
VIRTUAL REGION
REGION TYPE SIZE COUNT (non-coalesced)
=========== ======= =======
Activity Tracing 256K 1
CoreServices 172K 1
Foundation 16K 1
Kernel Alloc Once 8K 1
MALLOC 226.2M 31
MALLOC guard page 16K 4
MALLOC_NANO (reserved) 384.0M 1 reserved VM address space (unallocated)
STACK GUARD 56.0M 5
Stack 10.0M 5
VM_ALLOCATE 732K 12
__DATA 23.2M 280
__DATA_CONST 32K 1
__FONT_DATA 4K 1
__LINKEDIT 471.7M 7
__OBJC_RO 36.5M 1
__OBJC_RW 2483K 2
__TEXT 186.3M 279
__UNICODE 588K 1
mapped file 49.5M 8
shared memory 40K 4
=========== ======= =======
TOTAL 1.4G 646
TOTAL, minus reserved VM space 1.0G 646
Environment: Running macOS BigSur (10.16) and java version "14.0.1" 2020-04-14.
Steps: Go to Applications folder -> Right click on Eclipse/STS4 -> Click on Show Package Content -> Click on Contents -> open info.plist -> Paste this code replacing the tags in the file.
<array>
<!-- to use a specific Java version (instead of the platform's default) uncomment one of the following options, or add a VM found via $/usr/libexec/java_home -V -->
<string>-vm</string><string>/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-14.0.1.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java</string>
<string>-keyring</string>
<string>~/.eclipse_keyring</string>
</array>
STS4 from OS Catalina version don`t work on OX BIGSUR.
Try spring-tool-suite-4-4.9.0.CI-B173-e4.18.0-macosx.cocoa.x86_64.dmg, can you downloading from http://dist.springsource.com/snapshot/STS4/nightly-distributions.html
My solution
Step 1: Use o updated Java SDK version "1.8.0_271"
Step 2: Dowloading an install STS from spring-tool-suite-4-4.9.0.CI-B173-e4.18.0-macosx.cocoa.x86_64.dmg **
Step 3: verify you Shell (STS4 don`t work whit zsh version) may be /bin/bash/, follow steps https://support.apple.com/es-us/HT208050
Step 4: Thanks for follow https://www.facebook.com/gestiondigitaladministrativa
** link http://dist.springsource.com/snapshot/STS4/nightly-distributions.html
We have a client application (with 10+ years of development). Its JDK was upgraded from OpenJDK 11 to OpenJDK 14 recently. On single-CPU (hyper-threading disabled) Windows 10 setups (and inside VirtualBox machines with only one available CPU) the application starts quite slowly compared to Java 11. Furthermore, it uses 100% CPU most of the time. We could also reproduce the issue with setting the processor affinity to only one CPU (c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /C start /affinity 1 ...).
Some measurement with starting the application and doing a query with minimal manual interaction in my VirtualBox machine:
OpenJDK 11.0.2: 36 seconds
OpenJDK 13.0.2: ~1.5 minutes
OpenJDK 13.0.2 with -XX:-UseBiasedLocking: 46 seconds
OpenJDK 13.0.2 with -XX:-ThreadLocalHandshakes: 40 seconds
OpenJDK 14: 5-6 minutes
OpenJDK 14 with -XX:-UseBiasedLocking: 3-3,5 minutes
OpenJDK 15 EA Build 20: ~4,5 minutes
Only the used JDK (and the mentioned options) has been changed. (-XX:-ThreadLocalHandshakes is not available in Java 14.)
We have tried logging what JDK 14 does with -Xlog:all=debug:file=app.txt:uptime,tid,level,tags:filecount=50.
Counting the log lines for every second seems quite smooth with OpenJDK 11.0.2:
$ cat jdk11-log/app* | grep "^\[" | cut -d. -f 1 | cut -d[ -f 2 | sort | uniq -c | sort -k 2 -n
30710 0
44012 1
55461 2
55974 3
27182 4
41292 5
43796 6
51889 7
54170 8
58850 9
51422 10
44378 11
41405 12
53589 13
41696 14
29526 15
2350 16
50228 17
62623 18
42684 19
45045 20
On the other hand, OpenJDK 14 seems to have interesting quiet periods:
$ cat jdk14-log/app* | grep "^\[" | cut -d. -f 1 | cut -d[ -f 2 | sort | uniq -c | sort -k 2 -n
7726 0
1715 5
10744 6
4341 11
42792 12
45979 13
38783 14
17253 21
34747 22
1025 28
2079 33
2398 39
3016 44
So, what's happening between seconds 1-4, 7-10 and 14-20?
...
[0.350s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] jdk.internal.ref.CleanerFactory$1 java.lang.Thread CleanerFactory.java:45
[0.350s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] jdk.internal.ref.CleanerImpl java.lang.Thread CleanerImpl.java:117
[0.350s][7248][info ][biasedlocking ] Aligned thread 0x000000001727e010 to 0x000000001727e800
[0.350s][7248][info ][os,thread ] Thread started (tid: 2944, attributes: stacksize: default, flags: CREATE_SUSPENDED STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS)
[0.350s][6884][info ][os,thread ] Thread is alive (tid: 6884).
[0.350s][6884][debug][os,thread ] Thread 6884 stack dimensions: 0x00000000175b0000-0x00000000176b0000 (1024k).
[0.350s][6884][debug][os,thread ] Thread 6884 stack guard pages activated: 0x00000000175b0000-0x00000000175b4000.
[0.350s][7248][debug][thread,smr ] tid=7248: Threads::add: new ThreadsList=0x0000000017254500
[0.350s][7248][debug][thread,smr ] tid=7248: ThreadsSMRSupport::free_list: threads=0x0000000017253d50 is freed.
[0.350s][2944][info ][os,thread ] Thread is alive (tid: 2944).
[0.350s][2944][debug][os,thread ] Thread 2944 stack dimensions: 0x00000000177b0000-0x00000000178b0000 (1024k).
[0.350s][2944][debug][os,thread ] Thread 2944 stack guard pages activated: 0x00000000177b0000-0x00000000177b4000.
[0.351s][2944][debug][class,resolve ] java.lang.Thread java.lang.Runnable Thread.java:832
[0.351s][2944][debug][class,resolve ] jdk.internal.ref.CleanerImpl jdk.internal.misc.InnocuousThread CleanerImpl.java:135
[0.351s][2944][debug][class,resolve ] jdk.internal.ref.CleanerImpl jdk.internal.ref.PhantomCleanable CleanerImpl.java:138
[0.351s][2944][info ][biasedlocking,handshake] JavaThread 0x000000001727e800 handshaking JavaThread 0x000000000286d800 to revoke object 0x00000000c0087f78
[0.351s][2944][debug][vmthread ] Adding VM operation: HandshakeOneThread
[0.351s][6708][debug][vmthread ] Evaluating non-safepoint VM operation: HandshakeOneThread
[0.351s][6708][debug][vmoperation ] begin VM_Operation (0x00000000178af250): HandshakeOneThread, mode: no safepoint, requested by thread 0x000000001727e800
# no log until 5.723s
[5.723s][7248][info ][biasedlocking ] Revoked bias of currently-unlocked object
[5.723s][7248][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: RevokeOneBias for thread 0x000000000286d800, is_vm_thread: false, completed in 94800 ns
[5.723s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.util.zip.ZipFile$CleanableResource java.lang.ref.Cleaner ZipFile.java:715
[5.723s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.lang.ref.Cleaner jdk.internal.ref.CleanerImpl$PhantomCleanableRef Cleaner.java:220
[5.723s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.util.zip.ZipFile$CleanableResource java.util.WeakHashMap ZipFile.java:716
...
The second pause a little bit later:
...
[6.246s][7248][info ][class,load ] java.awt.Graphics source: jrt:/java.desktop
[6.246s][7248][debug][class,load ] klass: 0x0000000100081a00 super: 0x0000000100001080 loader: [loader data: 0x0000000002882bd0 of 'bootstrap'] bytes: 5625 checksum: 0025818f
[6.246s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.awt.Graphics java.lang.Object (super)
[6.246s][7248][info ][class,loader,constraints] updating constraint for name java/awt/Graphics, loader 'bootstrap', by setting class object
[6.246s][7248][debug][jit,compilation ] 19 4 java.lang.Object::<init> (1 bytes) made not entrant
[6.246s][7248][debug][vmthread ] Adding VM operation: HandshakeAllThreads
[6.246s][6708][debug][vmthread ] Evaluating non-safepoint VM operation: HandshakeAllThreads
[6.246s][6708][debug][vmoperation ] begin VM_Operation (0x000000000203ddf8): HandshakeAllThreads, mode: no safepoint, requested by thread 0x000000000286d800
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026b0800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 1400 ns
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026bb800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 700 ns
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026ef800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f0800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f1800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.246s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f4800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.247s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x0000000002768800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.247s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000000276e000, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.247s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x0000000017268800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[6.247s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000001727e800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 800 ns
# no log until 11.783s
[11.783s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000000286d800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 6300 ns
[11.783s][6708][info ][handshake ] Handshake "Deoptimize", Targeted threads: 11, Executed by targeted threads: 0, Total completion time: 5536442500 ns
[11.783s][6708][debug][vmoperation ] end VM_Operation (0x000000000203ddf8): HandshakeAllThreads, mode: no safepoint, requested by thread 0x000000000286d800
[11.783s][7248][debug][protectiondomain ] Checking package access
[11.783s][7248][debug][protectiondomain ] class loader: a 'jdk/internal/loader/ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader'{0x00000000c0058628} protection domain: a 'java/security/ProtectionDomain'{0x00000000c058b948} loading: 'java/awt/Graphics'
[11.783s][7248][debug][protectiondomain ] granted
[11.783s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] sun.launcher.LauncherHelper java.awt.Graphics LauncherHelper.java:816 (reflection)
[11.783s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] jdk.internal.reflect.Reflection [Ljava.lang.reflect.Method; Reflection.java:300
[11.783s][7248][debug][class,preorder ] java.lang.PublicMethods$MethodList source: C:\Users\example\AppData\Local\example\stable\jdk\lib\modules
...
Then the third one:
...
[14.578s][7248][debug][class,preorder ] java.lang.InheritableThreadLocal source: C:\Users\example\AppData\Local\example\stable\jdk\lib\modules
[14.578s][7248][info ][class,load ] java.lang.InheritableThreadLocal source: jrt:/java.base
[14.578s][7248][debug][class,load ] klass: 0x0000000100124740 super: 0x0000000100021a18 loader: [loader data: 0x0000000002882bd0 of 'bootstrap'] bytes: 1338 checksum: 8013ed55
[14.578s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.lang.InheritableThreadLocal java.lang.ThreadLocal (super)
[14.578s][7248][debug][jit,compilation ] 699 3 java.lang.ThreadLocal::get (38 bytes) made not entrant
[14.578s][7248][debug][vmthread ] Adding VM operation: HandshakeAllThreads
[14.578s][6708][debug][vmthread ] Evaluating non-safepoint VM operation: HandshakeAllThreads
[14.578s][6708][debug][vmoperation ] begin VM_Operation (0x000000000203d228): HandshakeAllThreads, mode: no safepoint, requested by thread 0x000000000286d800
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026b0800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 1600 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026bb800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 900 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026ef800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f0800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f1800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 100 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x00000000026f4800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 0 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x0000000002768800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 0 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000000276e000, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 0 ns
[14.578s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x0000000017268800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 0 ns
[14.579s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000001727e800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 900 ns
# no log until 21.455s
[21.455s][6708][debug][handshake,task ] Operation: Deoptimize for thread 0x000000000286d800, is_vm_thread: true, completed in 12100 ns
[21.455s][6708][info ][handshake ] Handshake "Deoptimize", Targeted threads: 11, Executed by targeted threads: 0, Total completion time: 6876829000 ns
[21.455s][6708][debug][vmoperation ] end VM_Operation (0x000000000203d228): HandshakeAllThreads, mode: no safepoint, requested by thread 0x000000000286d800
[21.455s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] sun.security.jca.Providers java.lang.InheritableThreadLocal Providers.java:39
[21.455s][7248][info ][class,init ] 1251 Initializing 'java/lang/InheritableThreadLocal'(no method) (0x0000000100124740)
[21.455s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] java.lang.InheritableThreadLocal java.lang.ThreadLocal InheritableThreadLocal.java:57
[21.456s][7248][debug][class,preorder ] sun.security.jca.ProviderList source: C:\Users\example\AppData\Local\example\stable\jdk\lib\modules
[21.456s][7248][info ][class,load ] sun.security.jca.ProviderList source: jrt:/java.base
[21.456s][7248][debug][class,load ] klass: 0x00000001001249a8 super: 0x0000000100001080 loader: [loader data: 0x0000000002882bd0 of 'bootstrap'] bytes: 11522 checksum: bdc239d2
[21.456s][7248][debug][class,resolve ] sun.security.jca.ProviderList java.lang.Object (super)
...
The following two lines seems interesting:
[11.783s][6708][info ][handshake ] Handshake "Deoptimize", Targeted threads: 11, Executed by targeted threads: 0, Total completion time: 5536442500 ns
[21.455s][6708][info ][handshake ] Handshake "Deoptimize", Targeted threads: 11, Executed by targeted threads: 0, Total completion time: 6876829000 ns
Is that normal that these handshakes took 5.5 and 6.8 seconds?
I have experienced the same slowdown (and similar logs) with the update4j demo app (which is completely unrelated to our application) running with this command:
Z:\swing>\jdk-14\bin\java -Xlog:all=debug:file=app.txt:uptime,tid,level,tags:filecount=50 \
-jar update4j-1.4.5.jar --remote http://docs.update4j.org/demo/setup.xml
What should I look for to make our app faster again on single-CPU Windows 10 setups? Can I fix this by changing something in our application or by adding JVM arguments?
Is that a JDK bug, should I report it?
update 2020-04-25:
As far as I see the log files also contains GC logs. These are the first GC logs:
$ cat app.txt.00 | grep "\[gc"
[0.016s][7248][debug][gc,heap ] Minimum heap 8388608 Initial heap 60817408 Maximum heap 1073741824
[0.017s][7248][info ][gc,heap,coops ] Heap address: 0x00000000c0000000, size: 1024 MB, Compressed Oops mode: 32-bit
[0.018s][7248][info ][gc ] Using Serial
[22.863s][6708][info ][gc,start ] GC(0) Pause Young (Allocation Failure)
[22.863s][6708][debug][gc,heap ] GC(0) Heap before GC invocations=0 (full 0): def new generation total 17856K, used 15936K [0x00000000c0000000, 0x00000000c1350000, 0x00000000d5550000)
...
Unfortunately it does not seem related since it starts after the third pause.
update 2020-04-26:
With OpenJDK 14 the application uses 100% CPU in my (single-CPU) VirtualBox machine (running on a i7-6600U CPU). The virtual machine has 3,5 GB RAM. According to Task Manager 40%+ is free and disk activity is 0% (I guess this means no swapping). Adding another CPU to the virtual machine (and enabling hyper-threading for physical machines) make the application fast enough again. I just wondering, was it an intentional trade-off during JDK development to loss performance on (rare) single-CPU machines to make the JVM faster on multicore/hyper-threading CPUs?
TL;DR: It's an OpenJDK regression filed as JDK-8244340 and has been fixed in JDK 15 Build 24 (2020/5/20).
I did not except that but I could reproduce the issue with a simple hello world:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello world");
}
}
I have used these two batch files:
main-1cpu.bat, which limits the java process to only one CPU:
c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /C start /affinity 1 \
\jdk-14\bin\java \
-Xlog:all=trace:file=app-1cpu.txt:uptime,tid,level,tags:filecount=50 \
Main
main-full.bat, the java process can use both CPUs:
c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe /C start /affinity FF \
\jdk-14\bin\java \
-Xlog:all=trace:file=app-full.txt:uptime,tid,level,tags:filecount=50 \
Main
(The differences are the affinity value and name of the log file. I've wrapped it for easier reading but wrapping with \ probably doesn't work on Windows.)
A few measurements on Windows 10 x64 in VirtualBox (with two CPUs):
PS Z:\main> Measure-Command { .\main-1cpu.bat }
...
TotalSeconds : 7.0203455
...
PS Z:\main> Measure-Command { .\main-full.bat }
...
TotalSeconds : 1.5751352
...
PS Z:\main> Measure-Command { .\main-full.bat }
...
TotalSeconds : 1.5585384
...
PS Z:\main> Measure-Command { .\main-1cpu.bat }
...
TotalSeconds : 23.6482685
...
The produced tracelogs contain similar pauses that you can see in the question.
Running Main without tracelogs is faster but the difference still can be seen between the single-CPU and two-CPU version: ~4-7 seconds vs. ~400 ms.
I've sent this findings to the hotspot-dev#openjdk mail list and devs there confirmed that this is something that the JDK could handle better. You can find supposed fixes in the thread too.
Another thread about the regression on hotspot-runtime-dev#. JIRA issue for the fix: JDK-8244340
From my experience performance problems with JDKs are related mostly to one of the following:
JIT Compilation
VM configuration (heap sizes)
GC algorithm
Changes in the JVM/JDK which break known good running applications
(Oh, and I forgot to mention class loading...)
If you just use the default JVM configuration since OpenJDK11, maybe you should set some of the more prominent options to fixed values, like GC, Heap size, etc.
Maybe some graphical analyse tool could help track your issue down. Like Retrace, AppDynamics or FlightRecorder and the like. These give more overview on the overall state of heap, GC cycles, RAM, threads, CPU load and so on at a given time than log files could provide.
Do I understand correctly that your application writes about 30710 lines to the log within the first second of running (under OpenJDK11)? Why is it "only" writing about 7k lines under OpenJDK14 in the first second? This seems like a huge difference for an application that is just started on different JVMs to me... Are you sure there are not for example high amounts of Exception stacktraces dumped into the log?
The other numbers are even higher sometimes, so maybe the slowdowns are related to exception logging? Or even swapping, if RAM gets low?
Actually I am thinking, if an application does not write anything into the log, this is a sign of smooth running without problems (unless it is frozen entirely in this time). What is happening from seconds 12-22 (in the OpenJDK14 case here) is what would concern me more... the logged lines go through the roof... why?
And afterwards the logging goes down to all time low values of about 1-2k lines... what is the reason for that?? (Well, maybe it is the GC kicking in at second 22 and does a tabula rasa which resolves some things...?)
Another thing may be your statement about "single CPU" machines. Does this imply "single core" also (Idk, maybe your software is tailored on legacy hardware or something)?
And the "single CPU" VMs are running on those machines?
But I assume, I am wrong about these assumptions, since almost all CPUs are multicore nowadays... but I would investigate on a multithreading issue (deadlock) problem maybe.
Since it's using 100% CPU "most of the time", and it takes 10 times longer (!) with Java 14, it means that you're wasting 90% of your CPU in Java 14.
Running out of heap space can do that, as you spend a whole lot of time in GC, but you seem to have ruled that out.
I notice that you're tweaking the biased locking option, and that it makes a significant difference. That tells me that maybe your program does a lot of concurrent work in multiple threads. It's possible that your program has a concurrency bug that shows up in Java 14, but not in Java 10. That could also explain why adding another CPU makes it more than twice as fast.
Concurrency bugs often only show up when you're unlucky, and the trigger could really have been anything, like a change to hashmap organization, etc.
First, if it's feasible, check for any loops that might be busy-waiting instead of sleeping.
Then, run a profiler in sampling mode (jvisualvm will do) and look for methods that are taking a much larger % of total time than they should. Since your performance is off by a factor of 10, any problems in there should really jump out.
This is an interesting issue and it would require indeterminate amount of effort to narrow it down since there are many permutations and combinations that need to be tried out and data collected and collated.
Seems as of there has been no resolution to this for some time. Perhaps this might need to be escalated.
EDIT 2: Since "ThreadLocalHandshakes" is deprecated and we can assume that locking is contended, suggest trying without "UseBiasedLocking" to hopefully speed up this scenario.
However there are some suggestions to collect more data and attempt to isolate the issue.
Allocate more than one core [I see that you have tried it and the issue goes away. Seems to be an issue with a thread/s execution precluding others. See no 7 below)
Allocate more heap (perhaps the demands of v14 is more than that of earlier jdks)
Allocate more memory to the Win 10 VB.
Check the OS system messages (Win 10 in your case)
Run it in an non-virtualized Win 10.
Try a different build of jdk 14
Do a thread dump every (or profile)few intervals of time. Analyze what thread is running exclusively. Perhaps there is a setting for equitable time sharing. Perhaps there is a higher priority thread running. What is that thread and what is it doing? In linux you could stat the lightweight processes (threads) associated with a process and its state in realtime. Something similar on Win 10?
CPU usage? 100% or less? Constrained by CPU or mem? 100% CPU in service threads? Which service thread?
Have you explicitly set a GC algo?
I have personally witnessed issues within versions that have to do with GC, heap resizing, issues with virtualized containers and so on.
There is no easy answer to that, I think, especially since this question has been around for some time. But we can try, all the best and let us know what is the result of some of these isolation steps.
EDIT 1: from the updated question, it seems to be related to a GC or another service thread taking over the single core non-equitably (Thread-Local Handshakes)?
Be careful with logging to slow disks, it will slow down your application:
https://engineering.linkedin.com/blog/2016/02/eliminating-large-jvm-gc-pauses-caused-by-background-io-traffic
But it doesn't seem likely to be the cause of the issue as the CPU is still busy and you don't have to wait for all threads to come to a safe point thanks to thread-local handshake: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/312
Also not directly related to the problem you have but more generally if you want to try to squeeze more performance out of your hardware for startup time, take a look at AppCDS (class data sharing):
https://blog.codefx.org/java/application-class-data-sharing/