Skip to content

[release/10.0] Fix LoaderHeap's free list growing more than expected#129592

Merged
JulieLeeMSFT merged 8 commits into
dotnet:release/10.0from
eduardo-vp:backport/128619-to-release/10.0
Jul 20, 2026
Merged

[release/10.0] Fix LoaderHeap's free list growing more than expected#129592
JulieLeeMSFT merged 8 commits into
dotnet:release/10.0from
eduardo-vp:backport/128619-to-release/10.0

Conversation

@eduardo-vp

@eduardo-vp eduardo-vp commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Backport of #129203 to release/10.0

Customer Impact

  • Customer reported
  • Found internally

This is a regression that impacts apps running test suites, running sometimes even 6x to 8x slower on Linux. Reported in #123124, in particular in this comment #123124 (comment).

Regression

  • Yes
  • No

Testing

Tested performance with the benchmark provided by the customer and another one in #129203 (comment). The issue happens under a high volume of method instantiations, we don't have such test. We could consider adding one.

Risk

Medium/Low. Actually the change is not that big - SatisfiesMethodConstraints is refactored and calls SatisfiesMethodConstraintsForInstantiation now. Also, inside InstantiatedMethodDesc::NewInstantiatedMethodDesc we previously took a lock, released it and took it again. Now we just don't release it in the middle and the call to SatisfiesMethodConstraints was moved to the beginning of the method. Unfortunately the github diff is way bigger than it should.

I also let the change sit in main for one week and no issues were linked to the original PR.

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • For .NET 8 and .NET 9: The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.
  • For .NET 10+: The PR target branch is release/X.0 (no -staging suffix).

Package authoring no longer needed in .NET 9

IMPORTANT: Starting with .NET 9, you no longer need to edit a NuGet package's csproj to enable building and bump the version.
Keep in mind that we still need package authoring in .NET 8 and older versions.

@eduardo-vp eduardo-vp self-assigned this Jun 18, 2026
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 18, 2026 19:33
@eduardo-vp eduardo-vp added tenet-performance Performance related issue area-VM-coreclr labels Jun 18, 2026
@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR backports the .NET 10 fix for a severe performance regression caused by UnlockedLoaderHeap free-list growth during high-concurrency generic method instantiation. It prevents multiple threads from racing to allocate and then discard redundant InstantiatedMethodDesc allocations, which previously inflated the free list and made subsequent allocations increasingly expensive.

Changes:

  • Added a shared helper (SatisfiesMethodConstraintsForInstantiation) to evaluate generic method constraints given an explicit instantiation.
  • Changed InstantiatedMethodDesc::NewInstantiatedMethodDesc to hold m_InstMethodHashTableCrst across lookup and creation/insertion, ensuring only one thread allocates/registers a MethodDesc per instantiation.
  • Refactored MethodDesc::SatisfiesMethodConstraints to delegate to the new helper.

@svick

svick commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hi,

the code complete date for 10.0.10 (the July 2026 release) is 24 June. Make sure to merge this PR on that date at the latest (or explicitly let me know that I should merge it), or it won't make it into that release.

As a reminder, if this is a product change, you also need Tactics approval before merging this PR (test-only or infra-only changes don't require Tactics approval).

@eduardo-vp eduardo-vp added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Jun 24, 2026
@JulieLeeMSFT JulieLeeMSFT added this to the 10.0.x milestone Jun 24, 2026
@eduardo-vp

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/ba-g Ran the pipeline a second time, the only failure it's because of that (Artifact CoreCLRCrossDacArtifacts already exists).

@JulieLeeMSFT JulieLeeMSFT added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release NO-MERGE The PR is not ready for merge yet (see discussion for detailed reasons) and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Jun 24, 2026
@JulieLeeMSFT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We have a tactics approval, but given the risk, we should run it for a few more weeks before merging.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Workflow state for the Holistic Review Orchestrator.

{
  "version": 5,
  "last_dispatched_commit": "5c44c9de9b295e106d3f80b88f04991e3ae58cdb",
  "last_dispatched_base_ref": "release/10.0",
  "last_dispatched_base_sha": "19775d9fe43decd5704c97e05647b986278381fb",
  "last_reviewed_commit": "5c44c9de9b295e106d3f80b88f04991e3ae58cdb",
  "last_reviewed_base_ref": "release/10.0",
  "last_reviewed_base_sha": "19775d9fe43decd5704c97e05647b986278381fb",
  "last_recorded_worker_run_id": "29677695217",
  "review_attempt_commit": "",
  "review_attempt_base_ref": "",
  "review_attempt_count": 0,
  "max_review_attempts": 5,
  "review_history_format": "holistic-review-disclosure-v1",
  "review_history": [
    {
      "commit": "5c44c9de9b295e106d3f80b88f04991e3ae58cdb",
      "review_id": 4730522271
    }
  ]
}

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Holistic Review

Motivation: This is a backport of the merged #129203 to release/10.0. It addresses a customer-reported performance regression where apps running test suites under a high volume of generic method instantiations were 6x-8x slower on Linux (issue #123124). The root cause was InstantiatedMethodDesc::NewInstantiatedMethodDesc acquiring the m_InstMethodHashTableCrst, releasing it, building the MethodDesc, and then re-acquiring it. This create/publish window let multiple threads race to build the same instantiation, discarding the losers' allocations into the LoaderHeap free list, which grew far beyond expectation.

Approach: Two coordinated changes in genmeth.cpp. (1) The lock is now held across both the initial lookup and the MethodDesc creation/insertion, so only one thread allocates and publishes a given instantiation, eliminating the wasted allocations. (2) The generic-method constraint check is moved to the beginning of the function (before any allocation) by extracting the constraint-validation logic from MethodDesc::SatisfiesMethodConstraints into a new free function SatisfiesMethodConstraintsForInstantiation, which operates on the generic method def, parent type handle, and instantiation directly. SatisfiesMethodConstraints now delegates to it. The bulk of the visible diff is re-indentation from restructuring the lock scope; the actual behavioral change is small.

Summary: I verified this backport is content-identical to the merged and validated original PR #129203 (git show 33dc710): the two patches differ only in diff line offsets and blob index hashes, with zero source-content divergence. The refactor preserves semantics: SatisfiesMethodConstraintsForInstantiation reproduces the original constraint loop verbatim (including the typicalInstMatchesMethodInst short-circuit for the InstantiationContext), and the canonical-instantiation exemption is preserved — the exempt check's second operand changed from pNewMD->GetClassInstantiation() to the equivalent pExactMT->GetInstantiation(), which is required since the check now runs before pNewMD exists. Moving the constraint check earlier is safe because it does not depend on the created MethodDesc. CheckRestore() is now called unconditionally at the end for both the freshly-created and the race-lost (found-existing) paths, matching the prior behavior where both paths called it. The original change soaked in main for a week without regressions. This is a low-risk, mechanically clean backport. No actionable findings.

One non-blocking observation carried over from the original (not introduced by this backport, so not a new finding): the PR notes no regression test was added because reproducing requires a high volume of instantiations. That is a reasonable tradeoff for a servicing backport.

Note

This review was generated by this repository's Holistic Review agentic workflow to complement the built-in Copilot review.

Generated by Holistic Review · 65.5 AIC · ⌖ 10.2 AIC · ⊞ 10K

@korchak-aleksandr

Copy link
Copy Markdown

We have a tactics approval, but given the risk, we should run it for a few more weeks before merging.

@JulieLeeMSFT @eduardo-vp
When approximately do you plan to merge this PR ?
Thank you in advance.

@JulieLeeMSFT JulieLeeMSFT removed the NO-MERGE The PR is not ready for merge yet (see discussion for detailed reasons) label Jul 20, 2026
@JulieLeeMSFT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@korchak-aleksandr, merging now.

@JulieLeeMSFT
JulieLeeMSFT merged commit 10bbe6e into dotnet:release/10.0 Jul 20, 2026
144 of 153 checks passed
@JulieLeeMSFT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rbhanda, please change the milestone.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-VM-coreclr Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release tenet-performance Performance related issue

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants