Distilling the Real Cost of Production Garbage Collectors

TL;DR

This paper introduces a methodology to empirically estimate the true cost of garbage collectors in production, revealing significant overheads and tradeoffs that impact performance and latency.

Contribution

It develops a novel empirical approach to measure and compare the actual costs of different garbage collectors in real-world settings.

Findings

Production GCs add 7-82% overhead in time and 6-92% in CPU cycles.

Newer low-pause GCs are more expensive and sometimes worse for latency.

GC costs can be masked by concurrency and resource provisioning.

Abstract

Abridged abstract: despite the long history of garbage collection (GC) and its prevalence in modern programming languages, there is surprisingly little clarity about its true cost. Without understanding their cost, crucial tradeoffs made by garbage collectors (GCs) go unnoticed. This can lead to misguided design constraints and evaluation criteria used by GC researchers and users, hindering the development of high-performance, low-cost GCs. In this paper, we develop a methodology that allows us to empirically estimate the cost of GC for any given set of metrics. By distilling out the explicitly identifiable GC cost, we estimate the intrinsic application execution cost using different GCs. The minimum distilled cost forms a baseline. Subtracting this baseline from the total execution costs, we can then place an empirical lower bound on the absolute costs of different GCs. Using this methodology, we study five production GCs in OpenJDK 17, a high-performance Java runtime. We measure the cost of these collectors, and expose their respective key performance tradeoffs. We find that with a modestly sized heap, production GCs incur substantial overheads across a diverse suite of modern benchmarks, spending at least 7-82% more wall-clock time and 6-92% more CPU cycles relative to the baseline cost. We show that these costs can be masked by concurrency and generous provisioning of memory/compute. In addition, we find that newer low-pause GCs are significantly more expensive than older GCs, and, surprisingly, sometimes deliver worse application latency than stop-the-world GCs. Our findings reaffirm that GC is by no means a solved problem and that a low-cost, low-latency GC remains elusive. We recommend adopting the distillation methodology together with a wider range of cost metrics for future GC evaluations.