Unclear contract of `flush_mutator`

[wks]

Currently, the doc comments of flush_mutator and destroy_mutator say:

• flush_mutator(): Flush the mutator's local states
• destroy_mutator(): Report to MMTk that a mutator is no longer needed. A binding should not attempt to use the mutator after this call...

Understandably, after destroy_mutator() is called, the VM binding must not call any other method of Mutator, and may reclaim its memory. This is relatively clear. The VM binding should call this when a thread exits.

But the contract of flush_mutator() is unclear. It is unclear what "flush" and "local states" mean in the context of "flush the mutator's local states".

Currently,

• mutator.flush() calls mutator.flush_remembered_sets(), and
• mutator.on_destroy() calls allocator.on_mutator_destroy() for all allocators. Currently only mark-sweep spaces need this. They return blocks to the global pool.

Obviously the allocators are part of a mutator's "local states", too, but they are not flushed during flush_mutator. This is confusing.

What does MMTK core do?

mutator.flush() is only called in the ScanMutatorRoots work packet. And the only BarrierSemantics that implements BarrierSemantics::flush is GenObjectBarrierSemantics. It flushes the modbuf by creating ProcessModBuf work packets in the Closure bucket.

If a mutator lives until the end of the program, this call site should suffice. The problem is, if a mutator thread exits between two GCs, it will record something in its modbuf, and reserve some blocks, but the Mutator instance will not be enumerated by ActivePlan::mutators() in the next GC. Those "dead" mutators must be reported to MMTk core before the next GC. This is the reason why we need to expose some form of mutator-flushing operation to the VM binidng.

What does the OpenJDK binding do?

The OpenJDK binding

• calls flush_mutator() in MMTkBarrierSet::on_thread_attach()
• calls flush_mutator() in MMTkBarrierSet::on_thread_detach()
• calls both flush_mutator() and destroy_mutator() in MMTkBarrierSet::on_thread_destroy()

This is confusing, too, for several reasons.

• After a thread is detached, the thread should not do anything to OpenJDK's heap. So even if the Mutator is reused after a subsequent "attach thread" operation (which is not. See below.), the flush_mutator in on_thread_attach should be redundant.
• And jni_DetachCurrentThread() always calls Thread::exit() (which calls on_thread_detach()),and then destructs the Thread instance (which calls on_thread_destroy()). This means there is no such thing as merely "detaching" a mutator. The Thread is always destroyed when detaching a thread in OpenJDK. This means when attaching thread the next time, it is attaching the current POSIX thread to a different Thread instance which is created in attach_current_thread().
  • Similarly, when attaching, a new Thread instance is created, and then Thread::initialize_thread_current is called (whch calls bind_mutator), and then Threads::add is called (which calls on_thread_attached() which calls flush_mutator). Obviously the flush_mutator is redundant because the mutator is just created.
• And OpenJDK always calls Thread::exit() before destructing the Thread instance everywhere. This makes the flushing in on_thread_detroy redundant.

Conclusion

A VM binding really wants to communicate only three things with the MMTK core.

1. A mutator thread is created. The VM binding requests a Mutator instance to be created. (bind_mutator)
2. When GC happens, the VM binding reports to the MMTk core all live Mutator instances. (ActivePlan::mutators())
3. When a mutator exits, the VM binding reports to the MMTk core that it is no loger used. (destroy_mutator)

The memory_manager::flush_mutator() function has no semantics w.r.t. the VM binding. It should be removed. The API should only expose bind_mutator() and destroy_mutator() to the VM binding, and destroy_mutator should do all the flushing necessary, including the remembered set and the blocks reserved by a mutator.

OpenJDK should call bind_mutator when attaching a thread, and call destroy_mutator when detaching a thread.

The name destroy_mutator

It should be better to rename the function destroy_mutator because it does not deallocate the memory the mutator occupies (which is the obligation of the binding). Alternatives include:

• unbind_mutator: This pairs with the bind_mutator function, and doesn't imply deallocating the memory.
• abandon_mutator: Implies the mutator will not be used again, but doesn't imply deallocation, either.
• Synonyms of "abandon": desert, discard, ditch, drop, forsake, scrap, ...

[k-sareen]

You need to still expose flush_mutator (or whatever we end up calling it) in the case where the ScanStackRoots work-packet is not created by the binding for VMs where it is too difficult/annoying to scan stack roots individually with all the root scanning done in scan_vm_specific_roots (I honestly think that flushing should be a separate step).

[qinsoon]

You need to still expose flush_mutator (or whatever we end up calling it) in the case where the ScanStackRoots work-packet is not created by the binding for VMs where it is too difficult/annoying to scan stack roots individually with all the root scanning done in scan_vm_specific_roots (I honestly think that flushing should be a separate step).

I think we currently require bindings to use the callback in stop_all_mutators for each mutator. As long as the binding calls the callback, we create ScanStackRoots for the mutator which includes flushing the states. In this case, we do not need a public flush_mutator method. https://github.com/mmtk/mmtk-core/blob/e55f872a52475daa8c5d49b9eb49a7588018dca4/src/vm/collection.rs#L19-L20