Bug 154181 - UNO array transfer with 500k elements considerably slower when running on Java 17 when compared to running on Java 11
Summary: UNO array transfer with 500k elements considerably slower when running on Jav...
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: sdk (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
7.6.0.0 alpha0+
Hardware: All Linux (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-03-14 10:00 UTC by Marc-Oliver Straub
Modified: 2025-11-27 11:29 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marc-Oliver Straub 2023-03-14 10:00:50 UTC
Description:
When invoking an interface method that transfers 500k integers (sal_Int32) from a C++ service to a Java client via UNO, we observe considerable performance degradation after updating our java runtime to Java 17. On a HP Z640 workstation, we see ~33sec vs. ~16sec when passing -XX:+UseBiasedLocking to the JVM.

This is due to the following JDK task: https://openjdk.org/jeps/374
And commit: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk15u/commit/398a2b3c37236c0cd1b5258b517adf9edaf0b044

UseBiasedLocking is marked for deprecation and disabled per default (OpenJDK 19 no longer allows setting -XX:+UseBiasedLocking).

The problem for UNO is as follows: Marshal and Unmarshal use a ByteArrayOutputStreamDataOutputStream resp. ByteArrayInputStreamDataInputStream.

1) java.io.ByteArrayInputStream.read() is synchronized and its used to read everything from the bytes of a transferred message, byte-per-byte (or close enough to make no difference performance-wise). So for each element in the array, the code is now taking a lock - the JVM no longer optimizes this away. 
2) Same applies for java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream.write(int).

We tried the workaround mentioned below, but for the example above it still results in about 30% performance degradation (average is at around ~22 seconds). 

Is there a more permanent solution that doesn't result in performance degradation? To our knowledge the synchronization is an accidental byproduct of using byte array output/input streams.



diff --git a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Marshal.java b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Marshal.java
index 106a8736cb31..5d0150f2ae23 100644
--- a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Marshal.java
+++ b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Marshal.java
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
  *   License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file
  *   except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
  *   the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 .
+ *
+ * Modifications <C2><A9> 2023 Advantest Corporation
  */
 package com.sun.star.lib.uno.protocols.urp;
 
@@ -210,6 +212,11 @@ final class Marshal {
         return data;
     }
 
+    public Object getStreamForSynchronization()
+    {
+        return buffer;
+    }
+
     private void writeBooleanValue(Boolean value) throws IOException {
         output.writeBoolean(value != null && value.booleanValue());
     }
diff --git a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Unmarshal.java b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Unmarshal.java
index c16d19291356..301d4228c52e 100644
--- a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Unmarshal.java
+++ b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/Unmarshal.java
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
  *   License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file
  *   except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
  *   the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 .
+ *
+ * Modifications <C2><A9> 2023 Advantest Corporation
  */
 package com.sun.star.lib.uno.protocols.urp;
 
@@ -157,6 +159,11 @@ final class Unmarshal {
         }
     }
 
+    public Object getStreamForSynchronization()
+    {
+        return bytesInput;
+    }
+
     public Object readValue(TypeDescription type) {
         try {
             switch (type.getTypeClass().getValue()) {
@@ -231,7 +238,8 @@ final class Unmarshal {
     }
 
     public void reset(byte[] data) {
-        input = new DataInputStream(new ByteArrayInputStream(data));
+        bytesInput = new ByteArrayInputStream(data);
+        input = new DataInputStream(bytesInput);
     }
 
     private Boolean readBooleanValue() throws IOException {
@@ -471,6 +479,7 @@ final class Unmarshal {
     private final ThreadId[] threadIdCache;
     private final TypeDescription[] typeCache;
     private DataInputStream input;
+    private ByteArrayInputStream bytesInput;
 }
 
 /* vim:set shiftwidth=4 softtabstop=4 expandtab: */
diff --git a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/urp.java b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/urp.java
index 76b5006feb3e..2653e40e4cf5 100644
--- a/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/urp.java
+++ b/ridljar/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/urp.java
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
  *   except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
  *   the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 .
  *
- * Modifications <C2><A9> 2019 Advantest Corporation
+ * Modifications <C2><A9> 2023 Advantest Corporation
  *
  */
 
@@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ public final class urp implements IProtocol {
                 }
             }
             UrpMessage msg;
+            synchronized(unmarshal.getStreamForSynchronization()) // fix for CR-160841
+            {
             int header = unmarshal.read8Bit();
             if ((header & HEADER_LONGHEADER) != 0) {
                 if ((header & HEADER_REQUEST) != 0) {
@@ -116,6 +118,8 @@ public final class urp implements IProtocol {
             } else {
                 msg = readShortRequest(header);
             }
+            }
+
             if (msg.isInternal()) {
                 handleInternalMessage(msg);
             } else {
@@ -163,6 +167,8 @@ public final class urp implements IProtocol {
         throws IOException
     {
         synchronized (output) {
+            synchronized(marshal.getStreamForSynchronization())
+            {
             if (PRINT_ALL_IPCS) {
                 System.out.println("java: writeReply " + result);
             }
@@ -204,6 +210,7 @@ public final class urp implements IProtocol {
             }
             writeBlock(true);
         }
+        }
     }
 
     private void sendRequestChange() throws IOException {
@@ -540,9 +547,12 @@ public final class urp implements IProtocol {
                     new QueuedRelease(internal, oid, type, desc, tid));
                 return false;
             } else {
+                synchronized(marshal.getStreamForSynchronization())
+                {
                 writeQueuedReleases();
                 return writeRequest(
                     internal, oid, type, desc, tid, arguments, true);
+                }
             }
         }
     }



Steps to Reproduce:
Transfer a Sequence<sal_Int32> from C++ to a Java client. C++ implementation looks like this:
  Sequence< Sequence< sal_Int32 > > JavaTest::getSequenceOfSequenceOfLongs()
  {
    int size = 10000;
    Sequence<Sequence<sal_Int32>> returnValue(size);

    for (sal_Int32 i = 0; i < size; i++) {
      returnValue[i] = Sequence< sal_Int32 >(i + 1);

      for (sal_Int32 j = 0; j < i + 1; j++) {
        returnValue[i][j] = j;
      }
    }
    return returnValue;
  }

Actual Results:
33s runtime when using java 17
16s runtime when using java 17 -XX:+UseBiasedLocking

Expected Results:
16s runtime even when not specifying -XX:+UseBiasedLocking


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: No

Additional Info:
n/a
Comment 1 Julien Nabet 2023-03-14 12:19:59 UTC
Stephan: I think you may be interested in this one since it concerns Uno and Java
Comment 2 QA Administrators 2025-11-27 11:29:48 UTC
Dear Marc-Oliver Straub,

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
 
If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not 
appropriate in this case)


If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword


Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug