Dynamically resize the WSTP if availableProcessors() changes

[armanbilge]

We currently rely on Runtime#availableProcessors to size the work-stealing threadpool. The JavaDoc warns that

Applications that are sensitive to the number of available processors should therefore occasionally poll this property and adjust their resource usage appropriately.

A concrete example of an environment where the number of available processors may change is Kubernetes with the Vertical Pod Autoscaler.

The Kubernetes Vertical Pod Autoscaler automatically adjusts the CPU and memory reservations for your Pods to help "right size" your applications.

Marking as "experiment" since this would be a non-trivial enhancement :) and maybe not worth the complexity.

[durban]

I'm nitpicking, but I don't think the VPA actually dynamically changes container resources. Based on the documentation, it seems to recreate pods with the changed resources.

However, it is possible to dynamically change CPU requests/limits (see here), so this issue is definitely relevant. This k8s feature is somewhat new, and behind a feature gate, but it works. (I did try it, and observed the return value of availableProcessors() changing in a single JVM.)

(I assume the VPA will also use this feature in the future, see here.)

Interestingly, the ForkJoinPool doesn't seem to follow the recommendation in the availableProcessors() javadoc (it only calls it once).

[djspiewak]

Interestingly, the ForkJoinPool doesn't seem to follow the recommendation in the availableProcessors() javadoc (it only calls it once).

This is fascinating. I've never seen this note before. For posterity:

This value may change during a particular invocation of the virtual machine. Applications that are sensitive to the number of available processors should therefore occasionally poll this property and adjust their resource usage appropriately.

So the problem is that actually using this information is somewhat difficult. Resizing the number of worker threads is kinda possible in theory, but I can see a whole host of objections very quickly:

• There are a number of places where we are almost certainly getting higher performance because the worker count is fixed for the lifetime of the application
• The number of race conditions we would have to think through on this bit of state is dizzying. Also have to think carefully about publication of writes, since right now we just write it once before the threads start and then go to town, meaning it's always visible
• Resizing upward is comparatively easy, since we're just adding workers which can then steal and take from the external and what not. Tasks would rebalance relatively quickly and life would be good. Resizing down is much harder, since we would need to first take workers out of rotation, then spill all their work, then wait for the worker to quiesce (while attempting to aggressively spill any excess work on each iteration), with the understanding that quiescence isn't guaranteed.
  • We could also put the worker into a state where, at the next suspension, it simply refuses to continue working and forcibly spills whatever is left. That might be better, though it would cause noticeable latency spikes
• How will this interact with blocking?