Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by dkitc...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2010 at 9:33
This problem was introduced in r1514, with the introduction of Kilim 0.6 and
slight modifications to our own
Kilim glue code. If we are unable to correct it directly, the best strategy may
be to roll back to our previous,
customized Kilim version.
Original comment by dkitc...@gmail.com
on 26 Feb 2010 at 9:04
Internal testing and discussion has led us to conclude that the test may be
failing because the workload is too
heavy, and we do not have any throttling in the engine (throttling is a
research topic all on its own). However, we
are not yet certain that overload is always the source of the bug; there may
still be an underlying Kilim issue.
Since this is a confirmed Kilim issue, I am handing it off to Amin.
Original comment by dkitc...@gmail.com
on 2 Mar 2010 at 9:28
Kilim 0.6 has serious memory issues when creating a lot of tasks.
Here is a log of things that I did.
First I tried running the threadring with the original new kilim 0.6 (without my
changes) to make sure it not because of my changes. It blows up.
Then I tried running the threadring with the kilim 0.58. It works ok.
I tried running one of the examples in original kilim 0.6. It is called
LotsOfTasks.
This example simply create a lot of task. The default behavior is that it
creates
100000 tasks in 10 rounds and between each round it sleep for 1000 and call
System.gc(). It works OK in this situation. But I started to play with that a
little.
I commented these lines:
// System.gc();
// Thread.sleep(1000); // give the GC a chance.
Guess what? It blew up! This is very similar situation with our threadring
benchmark.
So now I am sure it is kilim 0.6 problem.
Amazingly enough, the same LotsOfTasks example from kilim 0.6 works awesomely
with
kilim 0.58. I ran it with 1000000 tasks without gc and thread.sleep. It ran in a
blink of eyes!
I will safely go back 0.58. And We'll investigate the problem with kilim 0.6
offline.
Original comment by amsh...@gmail.com
on 4 Mar 2010 at 12:02
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dkitc...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2010 at 9:31