runtime: check the heap goal and trigger dynamically
As it stands, the heap goal and the trigger are set once by
gcController.commit, and then read out of gcController. However with the
coming memory limit we need the GC to be able to respond to changes in
non-heap memory. The simplest way of achieving this is to compute the
heap goal and its associated trigger dynamically.
In order to make this easier to implement, the GC trigger is now based
on the heap goal, as opposed to the status quo of computing both
simultaneously. In many cases we just want the heap goal anyway, not
both, but we definitely need the goal to compute the trigger, because
the trigger's bounds are entirely based on the goal (the initial runway
is not). A consequence of this is that we can't rely on the trigger to
enforce a minimum heap size anymore, and we need to lift that up
directly to the goal. Specifically, we need to lift up any part of the
calculation that *could* put the trigger ahead of the goal. Luckily this
is just the heap minimum and minimum sweep distance. In the first case,
the pacer may behave slightly differently, as the heap minimum is no
longer the minimum trigger, but the actual minimum heap goal. In the
second case it should be the same, as we ensure the additional runway
for sweeping is added to both the goal *and* the trigger, as before, by
computing that in gcControllerState.commit.
There's also another place we update the heap goal: if a GC starts and
we triggered beyond the goal, we always ensure there's some runway.
That calculation uses the current trigger, which violates the rule of
keeping the goal based on the trigger. Notice, however, that using the
precomputed trigger for this isn't even quite correct: due to a bug, or
something else, we might trigger a GC beyond the precomputed trigger.
So this change also adds a "triggered" field to gcControllerState that
tracks the point at which a GC actually triggered. This is independent
of the precomputed trigger, so it's fine for the heap goal calculation
to rely on it. It also turns out, there's more than just that one place
where we really should be using the actual trigger point, so this change
fixes those up too.
Also, because the heap minimum is set by the goal and not the trigger,
the maximum trigger calculation now happens *after* the goal is set, so
the maximum trigger actually does what I originally intended (and what
the comment says): at small heaps, the pacer picks 95% of the runway as
the maximum trigger. Currently, the pacer picks a small trigger based
on a not-yet-rounded-up heap goal, so the trigger gets rounded up to the
goal, and as per the "ensure there's some runway" check, the runway ends
up at always being 64 KiB. That check is supposed to be for exceptional
circumstances, not the status quo. There's a test introduced in the last
CL that needs to be updated to accomodate this slight change in
behavior.
So, this all sounds like a lot that changed, but what we're talking about
here are really, really tight corner cases that arise from situations
outside of our control, like pathologically bad behavior on the part of
an OS or CPU. Even in these corner cases, it's very unlikely that users
will notice any difference at all. What's more important, I think, is
that the pacer behaves more closely to what all the comments describe,
and what the original intent was.
Another note: at first, one might think that computing the heap goal and
trigger dynamically introduces some raciness, but not in this CL: the heap
goal and trigger are completely static.
Allocation outside of a GC cycle may now be a bit slower than before, as
the GC trigger check is now significantly more complex. However, note
that this executes basically just as often as gcController.revise, and
that makes up for a vanishingly small part of any CPU profile. The next
CL cleans up the floating point multiplications on this path
nonetheless, just to be safe.
For #48409.
Change-Id: I280f5ad607a86756d33fb8449ad08555cbee93f9
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/397014
Run-TryBot: Michael Knyszek <mknyszek@google.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Pratt <mpratt@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>