warning "Re-registering of platform native method: jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.park(ZJ)V from code in a different classloader"

[victornoel]

Describe the bug

When Pyroscope agent is loaded at runtime on a Java 21 VM, I can see the following warnings every few seconds in the logs:

[207.865s][warning][jni,resolve] Re-registering of platform native method: jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.park(ZJ)V from code in a different classloader

To Reproduce

The agent is loaded with:

config =
            new Config.Builder()
                .setApplicationName("MyApp")
                .setProfilingEvent(EventType.ITIMER)
                .setFormat(Format.JFR)
                .setServerAddress(serverAddress)
                .setAllocLive(true)
                .setProfilingAlloc(102400)
                .setProfilingLock(1000000)
                .build();

        PyroscopeAgent.start(
            new PyroscopeAgent.Options.Builder(config)
                .build()
        );

Expected behavior

No warnings

Environment

• Infrastructure: kubernetes, Java 21, Pyroscope Java Agent 0.13.0
• Deployment tool: [e.g., helm, jsonnet]

Additional Context

I found this old JDK bug meant to be fixed in Java 15: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8239593

[maradanasai]

I was able to get the same issue. All of my logs are filling with this error :/

[korniltsev]

Does the error happen with the async-profiler https://github.com/async-profiler/async-profiler ?

Please specify exact java versions (including vendor, build number) or base docker image

[victornoel]

Hi @korniltsev, in my case, it is using Java 21 with the base docker image eclipse-temurin:21-jre-jammy.

I don't remember ever seeing this error when using async-profiler, but it's hard to know as I mostly used it on my local machine (no docker). I will try to find some time to test it out, but I have to admit I can't guarantee I will be able to do it soon :P

[victornoel]

Hi @korniltsev, today I tested running some java in the exact same setup as when using pyroscope but without pyroscope and only async-profiler v3.0 added as an agent to the VM arguments and there are no warnings.

Since pyroscope loads the agent at runtime, maybe this is where the difference is… also I'm not sure if pyroscope uses the latest version of async-profiler (3.0)? this could also be an explanation…

[gabrieldimech]

we are experiencing the same issue with eclipse-temurin:21.0.2_13-jdk and agent v0.14.0

[SHaaD94]

facing the same behaviour even with 0.13.1 javaagent and following env variables:

PYROSCOPE_APPLICATION_NAME=app;
PYROSCOPE_LABELS=server=XXXX;
PYROSCOPE_LOG_LEVEL=debug;
PYROSCOPE_PROFILER_ALLOC=512k;
PYROSCOPE_PROFILER_EVENT=itimer;
PYROSCOPE_PROFILER_LOCK=1ms;
PYROSCOPE_PROFILING_INTERVAL=100ms;
PYROSCOPE_UPLOAD_INTERVAL=1s;
PYROSCOPE_SERVER_ADDRESS=url

If I remove PYROSCOPE_PROFILER_LOCK, I don't see warnings anymore

[xhumanoid]

updates:

1. issue happens not only with java 21, but started from java 15 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8239593 . when agents not from boot/platform loader try to override native system methods
2. PYROSCOPE_PROFILING_INTERVAL specify how frequent pyroscope do loop logic profiler start - profiler stop - dump - start - stop - dump ... https://github.com/grafana/pyroscope-java/blob/c79e21a2beb1f76080e0184f0c8a8d4e49b92fec/agent/src/main/java/io/pyroscope/javaagent/impl/SamplingProfilingScheduler.java#L48-L96

so we have multiple times when profiler do class/traps registration and it's create a lot of WARN messages from jvm

I also don't know is it correct logic or not to register/de-register async-profiler multiple times workaround -Xlog:jni+resolve=off maybe make sense to validate logic how pyroscope use async-profiler and do run only once and extract dump for specific interval, instead of multiple start/stop?

[korniltsev]

maybe make sense to validate logic how pyroscope use async-profiler and do run only once and extract dump for specific interval, instead of multiple start/stop?

absolutely, pyroscope should not load asprof twice. I will take a look, this should not be the case.

[LoranceChen]

met too. Seems it will continuous cost many CPU times on JIT compile.

[victornoel]

Hi @korniltsev, any news about this? Cheers :)