You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
rocksdb/cache/clock_cache.h

702 lines
31 KiB

// Copyright (c) 2011-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
// This source code is licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the
// COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License
// (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory).
//
// Copyright (c) 2011 The LevelDB Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
// found in the LICENSE file. See the AUTHORS file for names of contributors.
#pragma once
#include <array>
#include <atomic>
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
#include <cstddef>
#include <cstdint>
#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include "cache/cache_key.h"
#include "cache/sharded_cache.h"
#include "port/lang.h"
#include "port/malloc.h"
#include "port/port.h"
#include "rocksdb/cache.h"
#include "rocksdb/secondary_cache.h"
#include "util/autovector.h"
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
namespace clock_cache {
Towards a production-quality ClockCache (#10418) Summary: In this PR we bring ClockCache closer to production quality. We implement the following changes: 1. Fixed a few bugs in ClockCache. 2. ClockCache now fully supports ``strict_capacity_limit == false``: When an insertion over capacity is commanded, we allocate a handle separately from the hash table. 3. ClockCache now runs on almost every test in cache_test. The only exceptions are a test where either the LRU policy is required, and a test that dynamically increases the table capacity. 4. ClockCache now supports dynamically decreasing capacity via SetCapacity. (This is easy: we shrink the capacity upper bound and run the clock algorithm.) 5. Old FastLRUCache tests in lru_cache_test.cc are now also used on ClockCache. As a byproduct of 1. and 2. we are able to turn on ClockCache in the stress tests. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10418 Test Plan: - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` Reviewed By: pdillinger Differential Revision: D38170673 Pulled By: guidotag fbshipit-source-id: 508987b9dc9d9d68f1a03eefac769820b680340a
2 years ago
// Forward declaration of friend class.
class ClockCacheTest;
// HyperClockCache is an alternative to LRUCache specifically tailored for
// use as BlockBasedTableOptions::block_cache
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
//
// Benefits
// --------
// * Fully lock free (no waits or spins) for efficiency under high concurrency
// * Optimized for hot path reads. For concurrency control, most Lookup() and
// essentially all Release() are a single atomic add operation.
Call experimental new clock cache HyperClockCache (#10684) Summary: This change establishes a distinctive name for the experimental new lock-free clock cache (originally developed by guidotag and revamped in PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10626). A few reasons: * We want to make it clear that this is a fundamentally different implementation vs. the old clock cache, to avoid people saying "I already tried clock cache." * We want to highlight the key feature: it's fast (especially under parallel load) * Because it requires an estimated charge per entry, it is not drop-in API compatible with old clock cache. This estimate might always be required for highest performance, and giving it a distinct name should reduce confusion about the distinct API requirements. * We might develop a variant requiring the same estimate parameter but with LRU eviction. In that case, using the name HyperLRUCache should make things more clear. (FastLRUCache is just a prototype that might soon be removed.) Some API detail: * To reduce copy-pasting parameter lists, etc. as in LRUCache construction, I have a `MakeSharedCache()` function on `HyperClockCacheOptions` instead of `NewHyperClockCache()`. * Changes -cache_type=clock_cache to -cache_type=hyper_clock_cache for applicable tools. I think this is more consistent / sustainable for reasons already stated. For performance tests see https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10684 Test Plan: no interesting functional changes; tests updated Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39547800 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5c0fe1b5cf3cb680ab369b928c8569682b9795bf
2 years ago
// * Eviction on insertion is fully parallel and lock-free.
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// * Uses a generalized + aging variant of CLOCK eviction that might outperform
// LRU in some cases. (For background, see
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_replacement_algorithm)
//
// Costs
// -----
// * Hash table is not resizable (for lock-free efficiency) so capacity is not
// dynamically changeable. Rely on an estimated average value (block) size for
// space+time efficiency. (See estimated_entry_charge option details.)
// * Insert usually does not (but might) overwrite a previous entry associated
// with a cache key. This is OK for RocksDB uses of Cache.
// * Only supports keys of exactly 16 bytes, which is what RocksDB uses for
// block cache (not row cache or table cache).
// * SecondaryCache is not supported.
// * Cache priorities are less aggressively enforced. Unlike LRUCache, enough
// transient LOW or BOTTOM priority items can evict HIGH priority entries that
// are not referenced recently (or often) enough.
// * If pinned entries leave little or nothing eligible for eviction,
// performance can degrade substantially, because of clock eviction eating
// CPU looking for evictable entries and because Release does not
// pro-actively delete unreferenced entries when the cache is over-full.
// Specifically, this makes this implementation more susceptible to the
// following combination:
// * num_shard_bits is high (e.g. 6)
// * capacity small (e.g. some MBs)
// * some large individual entries (e.g. non-partitioned filters)
// where individual entries occupy a large portion of their shard capacity.
// This should be mostly mitigated by the implementation picking a lower
// number of cache shards than LRUCache for a given capacity (when
// num_shard_bits is not overridden; see calls to GetDefaultCacheShardBits()).
// * With strict_capacity_limit=false, respecting the capacity limit is not as
// aggressive as LRUCache. The limit might be transiently exceeded by a very
// small number of entries even when not strictly necessary, and slower to
// recover after pinning forces limit to be substantially exceeded. (Even with
// strict_capacity_limit=true, RocksDB will nevertheless transiently allocate
// memory before discovering it is over the block cache capacity, so this
// should not be a detectable regression in respecting memory limits, except
// on exceptionally small caches.)
// * In some cases, erased or duplicated entries might not be freed
// immediately. They will eventually be freed by eviction from further Inserts.
// * Internal metadata can overflow if the number of simultaneous references
// to a cache handle reaches many millions.
//
// High-level eviction algorithm
// -----------------------------
// A score (or "countdown") is maintained for each entry, initially determined
// by priority. The score is incremented on each Lookup, up to a max of 3,
// though is easily returned to previous state if useful=false with Release.
// During CLOCK-style eviction iteration, entries with score > 0 are
// decremented if currently unreferenced and entries with score == 0 are
// evicted if currently unreferenced. Note that scoring might not be perfect
// because entries can be referenced transiently within the cache even when
// there are no outside references to the entry.
//
// Cache sharding like LRUCache is used to reduce contention on usage+eviction
// state, though here the performance improvement from more shards is small,
// and (as noted above) potentially detrimental if shard capacity is too close
// to largest entry size. Here cache sharding mostly only affects cache update
// (Insert / Erase) performance, not read performance.
//
// Read efficiency (hot path)
// --------------------------
// Mostly to minimize the cost of accessing metadata blocks with
// cache_index_and_filter_blocks=true, we focus on optimizing Lookup and
// Release. In terms of concurrency, at a minimum, these operations have
// to do reference counting (and Lookup has to compare full keys in a safe
// way). Can we fold in all the other metadata tracking *for free* with
// Lookup and Release doing a simple atomic fetch_add/fetch_sub? (Assume
// for the moment that Lookup succeeds on the first probe.)
//
// We have a clever way of encoding an entry's reference count and countdown
// clock so that Lookup and Release are each usually a single atomic addition.
// In a single metadata word we have both an "acquire" count, incremented by
// Lookup, and a "release" count, incremented by Release. If useful=false,
// Release can instead decrement the acquire count. Thus the current ref
// count is (acquires - releases), and the countdown clock is min(3, acquires).
// Note that only unreferenced entries (acquires == releases) are eligible
// for CLOCK manipulation and eviction. We tolerate use of more expensive
// compare_exchange operations for cache writes (insertions and erasures).
//
// In a cache receiving many reads and little or no writes, it is possible
// for the acquire and release counters to overflow. Assuming the *current*
// refcount never reaches to many millions, we only have to correct for
// overflow in both counters in Release, not in Lookup. The overflow check
// should be only 1-2 CPU cycles per Release because it is a predictable
// branch on a simple condition on data already in registers.
//
// Slot states
// -----------
// We encode a state indicator into the same metadata word with the
// acquire and release counters. This allows bigger state transitions to
// be atomic. States:
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// * Empty - slot is not in use and unowned. All other metadata and data is
// in an undefined state.
// * Construction - slot is exclusively owned by one thread, the thread
// successfully entering this state, for populating or freeing data.
// * Shareable (group) - slot holds an entry with counted references for
// pinning and reading, including
// * Visible - slot holds an entry that can be returned by Lookup
// * Invisible - slot holds an entry that is not visible to Lookup
// (erased by user) but can be read by existing references, and ref count
// changed by Ref and Release.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// A special case is "detached" entries, which are heap-allocated handles
// not in the table. They are always Invisible and freed on zero refs.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// State transitions:
// Empty -> Construction (in Insert): The encoding of state enables Insert to
// perform an optimistic atomic bitwise-or to take ownership if a slot is
// empty, or otherwise make no state change.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Construction -> Visible (in Insert): This can be a simple assignment to the
// metadata word because the current thread has exclusive ownership and other
// metadata is meaningless.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Visible -> Invisible (in Erase): This can be a bitwise-and while holding
// a shared reference, which is safe because the change is idempotent (in case
// of parallel Erase). By the way, we never go Invisible->Visible.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Shareable -> Construction (in Evict part of Insert, in Erase, and in
// Release if Invisible): This is for starting to freeing/deleting an
// unreferenced entry. We have to use compare_exchange to ensure we only make
// this transition when there are zero refs.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Construction -> Empty (in same places): This is for completing free/delete
// of an entry. A "release" atomic store suffices, as we have exclusive
// ownership of the slot but have to ensure none of the data member reads are
// re-ordered after committing the state transition.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Insert
// ------
// If Insert were to guarantee replacing an existing entry for a key, there
// would be complications for concurrency and efficiency. First, consider how
// many probes to get to an entry. To ensure Lookup never waits and
// availability of a key is uninterrupted, we would need to use a different
// slot for a new entry for the same key. This means it is most likely in a
// later probing position than the old version, which should soon be removed.
// (Also, an entry is too big to replace atomically, even if no current refs.)
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// However, overwrite capability is not really needed by RocksDB. Also, we
// know from our "redundant" stats that overwrites are very rare for the block
// cache, so we should not spend much to make them effective.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// So instead we Insert as soon as we find an empty slot in the probing
// sequence without seeing an existing (visible) entry for the same key. This
// way we only insert if we can improve the probing performance, and we don't
// need to probe beyond our insert position, assuming we are willing to let
// the previous entry for the same key die of old age (eventual eviction from
// not being used). We can reach a similar state with concurrent insertions,
// where one will pass over the other while it is "under construction."
// This temporary duplication is acceptable for RocksDB block cache because
// we know redundant insertion is rare.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Another problem to solve is what to return to the caller when we find an
// existing entry whose probing position we cannot improve on, or when the
// table occupancy limit has been reached. If strict_capacity_limit=false,
// we must never fail Insert, and if a Handle* is provided, we have to return
// a usable Cache handle on success. The solution to this (typically rare)
// problem is "detached" handles, which are usable by the caller but not
// actually available for Lookup in the Cache. Detached handles are allocated
// independently on the heap and specially marked so that they are freed on
// the heap when their last reference is released.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Usage on capacity
// -----------------
// Insert takes different approaches to usage tracking depending on
// strict_capacity_limit setting. If true, we enforce a kind of strong
// consistency where compare-exchange is used to ensure the usage number never
// exceeds its limit, and provide threads with an authoritative signal on how
// much "usage" they have taken ownership of. With strict_capacity_limit=false,
// we use a kind of "eventual consistency" where all threads Inserting to the
// same cache shard might race on reserving the same space, but the
// over-commitment will be worked out in later insertions. It is kind of a
// dance because we don't want threads racing each other too much on paying
// down the over-commitment (with eviction) either.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Eviction
// --------
// A key part of Insert is evicting some entries currently unreferenced to
// make room for new entries. The high-level eviction algorithm is described
// above, but the details are also interesting. A key part is parallelizing
// eviction with a single CLOCK pointer. This works by each thread working on
// eviction pre-emptively incrementing the CLOCK pointer, and then CLOCK-
// updating or evicting the incremented-over slot(s). To reduce contention at
// the cost of possibly evicting too much, each thread increments the clock
// pointer by 4, so commits to updating at least 4 slots per batch. As
// described above, a CLOCK update will decrement the "countdown" of
// unreferenced entries, or evict unreferenced entries with zero countdown.
// Referenced entries are not updated, because we (presumably) don't want
// long-referenced entries to age while referenced. Note however that we
// cannot distinguish transiently referenced entries from cache user
// references, so some CLOCK updates might be somewhat arbitrarily skipped.
// This is OK as long as it is rare enough that eviction order is still
// pretty good.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// There is no synchronization on the completion of the CLOCK updates, so it
// is theoretically possible for another thread to cycle back around and have
// two threads racing on CLOCK updates to the same slot. Thus, we cannot rely
// on any implied exclusivity to make the updates or eviction more efficient.
// These updates use an opportunistic compare-exchange (no loop), where a
// racing thread might cause the update to be skipped without retry, but in
// such case the update is likely not needed because the most likely update
// to an entry is that it has become referenced. (TODO: test efficiency of
// avoiding compare-exchange loop)
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Release
// -------
// In the common case, Release is a simple atomic increment of the release
// counter. There is a simple overflow check that only does another atomic
// update in extremely rare cases, so costs almost nothing.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// If the Release specifies "not useful", we can instead decrement the
// acquire counter, which returns to the same CLOCK state as before Lookup
// or Ref.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Adding a check for over-full cache on every release to zero-refs would
// likely be somewhat expensive, increasing read contention on cache shard
// metadata. Instead we are less aggressive about deleting entries right
// away in those cases.
//
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// However Release tries to immediately delete entries reaching zero refs
// if (a) erase_if_last_ref is set by the caller, or (b) the entry is already
// marked invisible. Both of these are checks on values already in CPU
// registers so do not increase cross-CPU contention when not applicable.
// When applicable, they use a compare-exchange loop to take exclusive
// ownership of the slot for freeing the entry. These are rare cases
// that should not usually affect performance.
//
// Erase
// -----
// Searches for an entry like Lookup but moves it to Invisible state if found.
// This state transition is with bit operations so is idempotent and safely
// done while only holding a shared "read" reference. Like Release, it makes
// a best effort to immediately release an Invisible entry that reaches zero
// refs, but there are some corner cases where it will only be freed by the
// clock eviction process.
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// The load factor p is a real number in (0, 1) such that at all
// times at most a fraction p of all slots, without counting tombstones,
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// are occupied by elements. This means that the probability that a random
// probe hits an occupied slot is at most p, and thus at most 1/p probes
// are required on average. For example, p = 70% implies that between 1 and 2
// probes are needed on average (bear in mind that this reasoning doesn't
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// consider the effects of clustering over time, which should be negligible
// with double hashing).
// Because the size of the hash table is always rounded up to the next
// power of 2, p is really an upper bound on the actual load factor---the
// actual load factor is anywhere between p/2 and p. This is a bit wasteful,
// but bear in mind that slots only hold metadata, not actual values.
// Since space cost is dominated by the values (the LSM blocks),
// overprovisioning the table with metadata only increases the total cache space
// usage by a tiny fraction.
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
constexpr double kLoadFactor = 0.7;
// The user can exceed kLoadFactor if the sizes of the inserted values don't
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// match estimated_value_size, or in some rare cases with
// strict_capacity_limit == false. To avoid degenerate performance, we set a
// strict upper bound on the load factor.
constexpr double kStrictLoadFactor = 0.84;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
struct ClockHandleBasicData {
void* value = nullptr;
Cache::DeleterFn deleter = nullptr;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
// A lossless, reversible hash of the fixed-size (16 byte) cache key. This
// eliminates the need to store a hash separately.
UniqueId64x2 hashed_key = kNullUniqueId64x2;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
size_t total_charge = 0;
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
// For total_charge_and_flags
// "Detached" means the handle is allocated separately from hash table.
static constexpr uint64_t kFlagDetached = uint64_t{1} << 63;
// Extract just the total charge
static constexpr uint64_t kTotalChargeMask = kFlagDetached - 1;
inline size_t GetTotalCharge() const { return total_charge; }
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
// Calls deleter (if non-null) on cache key and value
void FreeData() const;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
// Required by concept HandleImpl
const UniqueId64x2& GetHash() const { return hashed_key; }
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
};
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
struct ClockHandle : public ClockHandleBasicData {
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Constants for handling the atomic `meta` word, which tracks most of the
// state of the handle. The meta word looks like this:
// low bits high bits
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
// | acquire counter | release counter | state marker |
// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
// For reading or updating counters in meta word.
static constexpr uint8_t kCounterNumBits = 30;
static constexpr uint64_t kCounterMask = (uint64_t{1} << kCounterNumBits) - 1;
static constexpr uint8_t kAcquireCounterShift = 0;
static constexpr uint64_t kAcquireIncrement = uint64_t{1}
<< kAcquireCounterShift;
static constexpr uint8_t kReleaseCounterShift = kCounterNumBits;
static constexpr uint64_t kReleaseIncrement = uint64_t{1}
<< kReleaseCounterShift;
// For reading or updating the state marker in meta word
static constexpr uint8_t kStateShift = 2U * kCounterNumBits;
// Bits contribution to state marker.
// Occupied means any state other than empty
static constexpr uint8_t kStateOccupiedBit = 0b100;
// Shareable means the entry is reference counted (visible or invisible)
// (only set if also occupied)
static constexpr uint8_t kStateShareableBit = 0b010;
// Visible is only set if also shareable
static constexpr uint8_t kStateVisibleBit = 0b001;
// Complete state markers (not shifted into full word)
static constexpr uint8_t kStateEmpty = 0b000;
static constexpr uint8_t kStateConstruction = kStateOccupiedBit;
static constexpr uint8_t kStateInvisible =
kStateOccupiedBit | kStateShareableBit;
static constexpr uint8_t kStateVisible =
kStateOccupiedBit | kStateShareableBit | kStateVisibleBit;
// Constants for initializing the countdown clock. (Countdown clock is only
// in effect with zero refs, acquire counter == release counter, and in that
// case the countdown clock == both of those counters.)
static constexpr uint8_t kHighCountdown = 3;
static constexpr uint8_t kLowCountdown = 2;
static constexpr uint8_t kBottomCountdown = 1;
// During clock update, treat any countdown clock value greater than this
// value the same as this value.
static constexpr uint8_t kMaxCountdown = kHighCountdown;
// TODO: make these coundown values tuning parameters for eviction?
// See above
std::atomic<uint64_t> meta{};
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
// Anticipating use for SecondaryCache support
void* reserved_for_future_use = nullptr;
}; // struct ClockHandle
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
class HyperClockTable {
public:
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
// Target size to be exactly a common cache line size (see static_assert in
// clock_cache.cc)
struct ALIGN_AS(64U) HandleImpl : public ClockHandle {
// The number of elements that hash to this slot or a lower one, but wind
// up in this slot or a higher one.
std::atomic<uint32_t> displacements{};
// Whether this is a "deteched" handle that is independently allocated
// with `new` (so must be deleted with `delete`).
// TODO: ideally this would be packed into some other data field, such
// as upper bits of total_charge, but that incurs a measurable performance
// regression.
bool detached = false;
inline bool IsDetached() const { return detached; }
inline void SetDetached() { detached = true; }
}; // struct HandleImpl
struct Opts {
size_t estimated_value_size;
};
HyperClockTable(size_t capacity, bool strict_capacity_limit,
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy,
const Opts& opts);
~HyperClockTable();
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
Status Insert(const ClockHandleBasicData& proto, HandleImpl** handle,
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Cache::Priority priority, size_t capacity,
bool strict_capacity_limit);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
HandleImpl* Lookup(const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
bool Release(HandleImpl* handle, bool useful, bool erase_if_last_ref);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
void Ref(HandleImpl& handle);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
void Erase(const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
void ConstApplyToEntriesRange(std::function<void(const HandleImpl&)> func,
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t index_begin, size_t index_end,
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
bool apply_if_will_be_deleted) const;
void EraseUnRefEntries();
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetTableSize() const { return size_t{1} << length_bits_; }
int GetLengthBits() const { return length_bits_; }
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetOccupancy() const {
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
return occupancy_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
Observe and warn about misconfigured HyperClockCache (#10965) Summary: Background. One of the core risks of chosing HyperClockCache is ending up with degraded performance if estimated_entry_charge is very significantly wrong. Too low leads to under-utilized hash table, which wastes a bit of (tracked) memory and likely increases access times due to larger working set size (more TLB misses). Too high leads to fully populated hash table (at some limit with reasonable lookup performance) and not being able to cache as many objects as the memory limit would allow. In either case, performance degradation is graceful/continuous but can be quite significant. For example, cutting block size in half without updating estimated_entry_charge could lead to a large portion of configured block cache memory (up to roughly 1/3) going unused. Fix. This change adds a mechanism through which the DB periodically probes the block cache(s) for "problems" to report, and adds diagnostics to the HyperClockCache for bad estimated_entry_charge. The periodic probing is currently done with DumpStats / stats_dump_period_sec, and diagnostics reported to info_log (normally LOG file). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10965 Test Plan: unit test included. Doesn't cover all the implemented subtleties of reporting, but ensures basics of when to report or not. Also manual testing with db_bench. Create db with ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,flush --num=3000000 --disable_wal=1 ``` Use and check LOG file for HyperClockCache for various block sizes (used as estimated_entry_charge) ``` ./db_bench --use_existing_db --benchmarks=readrandom --num=3000000 --duration=20 --stats_dump_period_sec=8 --cache_type=hyper_clock_cache -block_size=XXXX ``` Seeing warnings / errors or not as expected. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D41406932 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 4ca56162b73017e4b9cec2cad74466f49c27a0a7
2 years ago
size_t GetOccupancyLimit() const { return occupancy_limit_; }
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
size_t GetUsage() const { return usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed); }
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
size_t GetDetachedUsage() const {
return detached_usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Acquire/release N references
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
void TEST_RefN(HandleImpl& handle, size_t n);
void TEST_ReleaseN(HandleImpl* handle, size_t n);
Towards a production-quality ClockCache (#10418) Summary: In this PR we bring ClockCache closer to production quality. We implement the following changes: 1. Fixed a few bugs in ClockCache. 2. ClockCache now fully supports ``strict_capacity_limit == false``: When an insertion over capacity is commanded, we allocate a handle separately from the hash table. 3. ClockCache now runs on almost every test in cache_test. The only exceptions are a test where either the LRU policy is required, and a test that dynamically increases the table capacity. 4. ClockCache now supports dynamically decreasing capacity via SetCapacity. (This is easy: we shrink the capacity upper bound and run the clock algorithm.) 5. Old FastLRUCache tests in lru_cache_test.cc are now also used on ClockCache. As a byproduct of 1. and 2. we are able to turn on ClockCache in the stress tests. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10418 Test Plan: - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` Reviewed By: pdillinger Differential Revision: D38170673 Pulled By: guidotag fbshipit-source-id: 508987b9dc9d9d68f1a03eefac769820b680340a
2 years ago
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
private: // functions
// Returns x mod 2^{length_bits_}.
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
inline size_t ModTableSize(uint64_t x) {
return static_cast<size_t>(x) & length_bits_mask_;
}
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Runs the clock eviction algorithm trying to reclaim at least
// requested_charge. Returns how much is evicted, which could be less
// if it appears impossible to evict the requested amount without blocking.
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
inline void Evict(size_t requested_charge, size_t* freed_charge,
size_t* freed_count);
// Returns the first slot in the probe sequence, starting from the given
// probe number, with a handle e such that match(e) is true. At every
// step, the function first tests whether match(e) holds. If this is false,
// it evaluates abort(e) to decide whether the search should be aborted,
// and in the affirmative returns -1. For every handle e probed except
// the last one, the function runs update(e).
// The probe parameter is modified as follows. We say a probe to a handle
// e is aborting if match(e) is false and abort(e) is true. Then the final
// value of probe is one more than the last non-aborting probe during the
// call. This is so that that the variable can be used to keep track of
// progress across consecutive calls to FindSlot.
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
inline HandleImpl* FindSlot(const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key,
std::function<bool(HandleImpl*)> match,
std::function<bool(HandleImpl*)> stop,
std::function<void(HandleImpl*)> update,
size_t& probe);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Re-decrement all displacements in probe path starting from beginning
// until (not including) the given handle
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
inline void Rollback(const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key, const HandleImpl* h);
// Subtracts `total_charge` from `usage_` and 1 from `occupancy_`.
// Ideally this comes after releasing the entry itself so that we
// actually have the available occupancy/usage that is claimed.
// However, that means total_charge has to be saved from the handle
// before releasing it so that it can be provided to this function.
inline void ReclaimEntryUsage(size_t total_charge);
// Helper for updating `usage_` for new entry with given `total_charge`
// and evicting if needed under strict_capacity_limit=true rules. This
// means the operation might fail with Status::MemoryLimit. If
// `need_evict_for_occupancy`, then eviction of at least one entry is
// required, and the operation should fail if not possible.
// NOTE: Otherwise, occupancy_ is not managed in this function
inline Status ChargeUsageMaybeEvictStrict(size_t total_charge,
size_t capacity,
bool need_evict_for_occupancy);
// Helper for updating `usage_` for new entry with given `total_charge`
// and evicting if needed under strict_capacity_limit=false rules. This
// means that updating `usage_` always succeeds even if forced to exceed
// capacity. If `need_evict_for_occupancy`, then eviction of at least one
// entry is required, and the operation should return false if such eviction
// is not possible. `usage_` is not updated in that case. Otherwise, returns
// true, indicating success.
// NOTE: occupancy_ is not managed in this function
inline bool ChargeUsageMaybeEvictNonStrict(size_t total_charge,
size_t capacity,
bool need_evict_for_occupancy);
// Creates a "detached" handle for returning from an Insert operation that
// cannot be completed by actually inserting into the table.
// Updates `detached_usage_` but not `usage_` nor `occupancy_`.
inline HandleImpl* DetachedInsert(const ClockHandleBasicData& proto);
// Returns the number of bits used to hash an element in the hash
// table.
static int CalcHashBits(size_t capacity, size_t estimated_value_size,
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
private: // data
// Number of hash bits used for table index.
// The size of the table is 1 << length_bits_.
const int length_bits_;
// For faster computation of ModTableSize.
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
const size_t length_bits_mask_;
// Maximum number of elements the user can store in the table.
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
const size_t occupancy_limit_;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Array of slots comprising the hash table.
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
const std::unique_ptr<HandleImpl[]> array_;
// We partition the following members into different cache lines
// to avoid false sharing among Lookup, Release, Erase and Insert
// operations in ClockCacheShard.
ALIGN_AS(CACHE_LINE_SIZE)
// Clock algorithm sweep pointer.
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
std::atomic<uint64_t> clock_pointer_{};
ALIGN_AS(CACHE_LINE_SIZE)
// Number of elements in the table.
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
std::atomic<size_t> occupancy_{};
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Memory usage by entries tracked by the cache (including detached)
std::atomic<size_t> usage_{};
// Part of usage by detached entries (not in table)
std::atomic<size_t> detached_usage_{};
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
}; // class HyperClockTable
// A single shard of sharded cache.
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
template <class Table>
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
class ALIGN_AS(CACHE_LINE_SIZE) ClockCacheShard final : public CacheShardBase {
public:
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
ClockCacheShard(size_t capacity, bool strict_capacity_limit,
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy,
const typename Table::Opts& opts);
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
// For CacheShard concept
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
using HandleImpl = typename Table::HandleImpl;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
// Hash is lossless hash of 128-bit key
using HashVal = UniqueId64x2;
using HashCref = const HashVal&;
static inline uint32_t HashPieceForSharding(HashCref hash) {
return Upper32of64(hash[0]);
}
static inline HashVal ComputeHash(const Slice& key) {
assert(key.size() == kCacheKeySize);
HashVal in;
HashVal out;
// NOTE: endian dependence
// TODO: use GetUnaligned?
std::memcpy(&in, key.data(), kCacheKeySize);
BijectiveHash2x64(in[1], in[0], &out[1], &out[0]);
return out;
}
// For reconstructing key from hashed_key. Requires the caller to provide
// backing storage for the Slice in `unhashed`
static inline Slice ReverseHash(const UniqueId64x2& hashed,
UniqueId64x2* unhashed) {
BijectiveUnhash2x64(hashed[1], hashed[0], &(*unhashed)[1], &(*unhashed)[0]);
// NOTE: endian dependence
return Slice(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(unhashed), kCacheKeySize);
}
// Although capacity is dynamically changeable, the number of table slots is
// not, so growing capacity substantially could lead to hitting occupancy
// limit.
void SetCapacity(size_t capacity);
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
void SetStrictCapacityLimit(bool strict_capacity_limit);
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
Status Insert(const Slice& key, const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key, void* value,
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
size_t charge, Cache::DeleterFn deleter, HandleImpl** handle,
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
Cache::Priority priority);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
HandleImpl* Lookup(const Slice& key, const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
bool Release(HandleImpl* handle, bool useful, bool erase_if_last_ref);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
bool Release(HandleImpl* handle, bool erase_if_last_ref = false);
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
bool Ref(HandleImpl* handle);
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
void Erase(const Slice& key, const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key);
Observe and warn about misconfigured HyperClockCache (#10965) Summary: Background. One of the core risks of chosing HyperClockCache is ending up with degraded performance if estimated_entry_charge is very significantly wrong. Too low leads to under-utilized hash table, which wastes a bit of (tracked) memory and likely increases access times due to larger working set size (more TLB misses). Too high leads to fully populated hash table (at some limit with reasonable lookup performance) and not being able to cache as many objects as the memory limit would allow. In either case, performance degradation is graceful/continuous but can be quite significant. For example, cutting block size in half without updating estimated_entry_charge could lead to a large portion of configured block cache memory (up to roughly 1/3) going unused. Fix. This change adds a mechanism through which the DB periodically probes the block cache(s) for "problems" to report, and adds diagnostics to the HyperClockCache for bad estimated_entry_charge. The periodic probing is currently done with DumpStats / stats_dump_period_sec, and diagnostics reported to info_log (normally LOG file). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10965 Test Plan: unit test included. Doesn't cover all the implemented subtleties of reporting, but ensures basics of when to report or not. Also manual testing with db_bench. Create db with ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,flush --num=3000000 --disable_wal=1 ``` Use and check LOG file for HyperClockCache for various block sizes (used as estimated_entry_charge) ``` ./db_bench --use_existing_db --benchmarks=readrandom --num=3000000 --duration=20 --stats_dump_period_sec=8 --cache_type=hyper_clock_cache -block_size=XXXX ``` Seeing warnings / errors or not as expected. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D41406932 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 4ca56162b73017e4b9cec2cad74466f49c27a0a7
2 years ago
size_t GetCapacity() const;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetUsage() const;
Observe and warn about misconfigured HyperClockCache (#10965) Summary: Background. One of the core risks of chosing HyperClockCache is ending up with degraded performance if estimated_entry_charge is very significantly wrong. Too low leads to under-utilized hash table, which wastes a bit of (tracked) memory and likely increases access times due to larger working set size (more TLB misses). Too high leads to fully populated hash table (at some limit with reasonable lookup performance) and not being able to cache as many objects as the memory limit would allow. In either case, performance degradation is graceful/continuous but can be quite significant. For example, cutting block size in half without updating estimated_entry_charge could lead to a large portion of configured block cache memory (up to roughly 1/3) going unused. Fix. This change adds a mechanism through which the DB periodically probes the block cache(s) for "problems" to report, and adds diagnostics to the HyperClockCache for bad estimated_entry_charge. The periodic probing is currently done with DumpStats / stats_dump_period_sec, and diagnostics reported to info_log (normally LOG file). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10965 Test Plan: unit test included. Doesn't cover all the implemented subtleties of reporting, but ensures basics of when to report or not. Also manual testing with db_bench. Create db with ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,flush --num=3000000 --disable_wal=1 ``` Use and check LOG file for HyperClockCache for various block sizes (used as estimated_entry_charge) ``` ./db_bench --use_existing_db --benchmarks=readrandom --num=3000000 --duration=20 --stats_dump_period_sec=8 --cache_type=hyper_clock_cache -block_size=XXXX ``` Seeing warnings / errors or not as expected. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D41406932 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 4ca56162b73017e4b9cec2cad74466f49c27a0a7
2 years ago
size_t GetDetachedUsage() const;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetPinnedUsage() const;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetOccupancyCount() const;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Observe and warn about misconfigured HyperClockCache (#10965) Summary: Background. One of the core risks of chosing HyperClockCache is ending up with degraded performance if estimated_entry_charge is very significantly wrong. Too low leads to under-utilized hash table, which wastes a bit of (tracked) memory and likely increases access times due to larger working set size (more TLB misses). Too high leads to fully populated hash table (at some limit with reasonable lookup performance) and not being able to cache as many objects as the memory limit would allow. In either case, performance degradation is graceful/continuous but can be quite significant. For example, cutting block size in half without updating estimated_entry_charge could lead to a large portion of configured block cache memory (up to roughly 1/3) going unused. Fix. This change adds a mechanism through which the DB periodically probes the block cache(s) for "problems" to report, and adds diagnostics to the HyperClockCache for bad estimated_entry_charge. The periodic probing is currently done with DumpStats / stats_dump_period_sec, and diagnostics reported to info_log (normally LOG file). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10965 Test Plan: unit test included. Doesn't cover all the implemented subtleties of reporting, but ensures basics of when to report or not. Also manual testing with db_bench. Create db with ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,flush --num=3000000 --disable_wal=1 ``` Use and check LOG file for HyperClockCache for various block sizes (used as estimated_entry_charge) ``` ./db_bench --use_existing_db --benchmarks=readrandom --num=3000000 --duration=20 --stats_dump_period_sec=8 --cache_type=hyper_clock_cache -block_size=XXXX ``` Seeing warnings / errors or not as expected. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D41406932 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 4ca56162b73017e4b9cec2cad74466f49c27a0a7
2 years ago
size_t GetOccupancyLimit() const;
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t GetTableAddressCount() const;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
void ApplyToSomeEntries(
const std::function<void(const Slice& key, void* value, size_t charge,
DeleterFn deleter)>& callback,
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
size_t average_entries_per_lock, size_t* state);
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
void EraseUnRefEntries();
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
std::string GetPrintableOptions() const { return std::string{}; }
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// SecondaryCache not yet supported
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
Status Insert(const Slice& key, const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key, void* value,
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
const Cache::CacheItemHelper* helper, size_t charge,
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
HandleImpl** handle, Cache::Priority priority) {
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
return Insert(key, hashed_key, value, charge, helper->del_cb, handle,
priority);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
}
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
HandleImpl* Lookup(const Slice& key, const UniqueId64x2& hashed_key,
const Cache::CacheItemHelper* /*helper*/,
const Cache::CreateCallback& /*create_cb*/,
Cache::Priority /*priority*/, bool /*wait*/,
Statistics* /*stats*/) {
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
return Lookup(key, hashed_key);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
}
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
bool IsReady(HandleImpl* /*handle*/) { return true; }
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
void Wait(HandleImpl* /*handle*/) {}
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Acquire/release N references
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
void TEST_RefN(HandleImpl* handle, size_t n);
void TEST_ReleaseN(HandleImpl* handle, size_t n);
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
private: // data
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
Table table_;
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Maximum total charge of all elements stored in the table.
std::atomic<size_t> capacity_;
Towards a production-quality ClockCache (#10418) Summary: In this PR we bring ClockCache closer to production quality. We implement the following changes: 1. Fixed a few bugs in ClockCache. 2. ClockCache now fully supports ``strict_capacity_limit == false``: When an insertion over capacity is commanded, we allocate a handle separately from the hash table. 3. ClockCache now runs on almost every test in cache_test. The only exceptions are a test where either the LRU policy is required, and a test that dynamically increases the table capacity. 4. ClockCache now supports dynamically decreasing capacity via SetCapacity. (This is easy: we shrink the capacity upper bound and run the clock algorithm.) 5. Old FastLRUCache tests in lru_cache_test.cc are now also used on ClockCache. As a byproduct of 1. and 2. we are able to turn on ClockCache in the stress tests. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10418 Test Plan: - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 check`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 COMPILE_WITH_UBSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` - ``make -j24 USE_CLANG=1 COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 CRASH_TEST_EXT_ARGS="--duration=960 --cache_type=clock_cache" blackbox_crash_test_with_atomic_flush`` Reviewed By: pdillinger Differential Revision: D38170673 Pulled By: guidotag fbshipit-source-id: 508987b9dc9d9d68f1a03eefac769820b680340a
2 years ago
Revamp, optimize new experimental clock cache (#10626) Summary: * Consolidates most metadata into a single word per slot so that more can be accomplished with a single atomic update. In the common case, Lookup was previously about 4 atomic updates, now just 1 atomic update. Common case Release was previously 1 atomic read + 1 atomic update, now just 1 atomic update. * Eliminate spins / waits / yields, which likely threaten some "lock free" benefits. Compare-exchange loops are only used in explicit Erase, and strict_capacity_limit=true Insert. Eviction uses opportunistic compare- exchange. * Relaxes some aggressiveness and guarantees. For example, * Duplicate Inserts will sometimes go undetected and the shadow duplicate will age out with eviction. * In many cases, the older Inserted value for a given cache key will be kept (i.e. Insert does not support overwrite). * Entries explicitly erased (rather than evicted) might not be freed immediately in some rare cases. * With strict_capacity_limit=false, capacity limit is not tracked/enforced as precisely as LRUCache, but is self-correcting and should only deviate by a very small number of extra or fewer entries. * Use smaller "computed default" number of cache shards in many cases, because benefits to larger usage tracking / eviction pools outweigh the small cost of more lock-free atomic contention. The improvement in CPU and I/O is dramatic in some limit-memory cases. * Even without the sharding change, the eviction algorithm is likely more effective than LRU overall because it's more stateful, even though the "hot path" state tracking for it is essentially free with ref counting. It is like a generalized CLOCK with aging (see code comments). I don't have performance numbers showing a specific improvement, but in theory, for a Poisson access pattern to each block, keeping some state allows better estimation of time to next access (Poisson interval) than strict LRU. The bounded randomness in CLOCK can also reduce "cliff" effect for repeated range scans approaching and exceeding cache size. ## Hot path algorithm comparison Rough descriptions, focusing on number and kind of atomic operations: * Old `Lookup()` (2-5 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment internal ref count at slot If possible hit: Check flags atomic (and non-atomic fields) If cache hit: Three distinct updates to 'flags' atomic Increment refs for internal-to-external Return Decrement internal ref count while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * New `Lookup()` (1-2 atomic updates per probe): ``` Loop: Increment acquire counter in meta word (optimistic) If visible entry (already read meta word): If match (read non-atomic fields): Return Else: Decrement acquire counter in meta word Else if invisible entry (rare, already read meta word): Decrement acquire counter in meta word while atomic read 'displacements' > 0 ``` * Old `Release()` (1 atomic update, conditional on atomic read, rarely more): ``` Read atomic ref count If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return Else: Decrement ref count ``` * New `Release()` (1 unconditional atomic update, rarely more): ``` Increment release counter in meta word If last reference and invisible (rare): Use CAS etc. to remove Return ``` ## Performance test setup Build DB with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16 ``` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=${CACHE_MB}000000 -duration 60 -threads=$THREADS -statistics ``` Numbers on a single socket Skylake Xeon system with 48 hardware threads, DEBUG_LEVEL=0 PORTABLE=0. Very similar story on a dual socket system with 80 hardware threads. Using (every 2nd) Fibonacci MB cache sizes to sample the territory between powers of two. Configurations: base: LRUCache before this change, but with db_bench change to default cache_numshardbits=-1 (instead of fixed at 6) folly: LRUCache before this change, with folly enabled (distributed mutex) but on an old compiler (sorry) gt_clock: experimental ClockCache before this change new_clock: experimental ClockCache with this change ## Performance test results First test "hot path" read performance, with block cache large enough for whole DB: 4181MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 47.761 4181MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.877 4181MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 51.092 4181MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 53.944 4181MB 16thread base -> kops/s: 284.567 4181MB 16thread folly -> kops/s: 249.015 4181MB 16thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 743.762 4181MB 16thread new_clock -> kops/s: 861.821 4181MB 24thread base -> kops/s: 303.415 4181MB 24thread folly -> kops/s: 266.548 4181MB 24thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 975.706 4181MB 24thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1205.64 (~= 24 * 53.944) 4181MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 311.251 4181MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 274.952 4181MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1045.98 4181MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1370.38 4181MB 48thread base -> kops/s: 310.504 4181MB 48thread folly -> kops/s: 268.322 4181MB 48thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1195.65 4181MB 48thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1604.85 (~= 24 * 1.25 * 53.944) 4181MB 64thread base -> kops/s: 307.839 4181MB 64thread folly -> kops/s: 272.172 4181MB 64thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1204.47 4181MB 64thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1615.37 4181MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 310.934 4181MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.468 4181MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1188.75 4181MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1595.46 Whether we have just one thread on a quiet system or an overload of threads, the new version wins every time in thousand-ops per second, sometimes dramatically so. Mutex-based implementation quickly becomes contention-limited. New clock cache shows essentially perfect scaling up to number of physical cores (24), and then each hyperthreaded core adding about 1/4 the throughput of an additional physical core (see 48 thread case). Block cache miss rates (omitted above) are negligible across the board. With partitioned instead of full filters, the maximum speed-up vs. base is more like 2.5x rather than 5x. Now test a large block cache with low miss ratio, but some eviction is required: 1597MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 46.603 io_bytes/op: 1584.63 miss_ratio: 0.0201066 max_rss_mb: 1589.23 1597MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 45.079 io_bytes/op: 1530.03 miss_ratio: 0.019872 max_rss_mb: 1550.43 1597MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 48.711 io_bytes/op: 1566.63 miss_ratio: 0.0198923 max_rss_mb: 1691.4 1597MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 51.531 io_bytes/op: 1589.07 miss_ratio: 0.0201969 max_rss_mb: 1583.56 1597MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 301.174 io_bytes/op: 1439.52 miss_ratio: 0.0184218 max_rss_mb: 1656.59 1597MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 273.09 io_bytes/op: 1375.12 miss_ratio: 0.0180002 max_rss_mb: 1586.8 1597MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 904.497 io_bytes/op: 1411.29 miss_ratio: 0.0179934 max_rss_mb: 1775.89 1597MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1182.59 io_bytes/op: 1440.77 miss_ratio: 0.0185449 max_rss_mb: 1636.45 1597MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 309.91 io_bytes/op: 1438.25 miss_ratio: 0.018399 max_rss_mb: 1689.98 1597MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 267.605 io_bytes/op: 1394.16 miss_ratio: 0.0180286 max_rss_mb: 1631.91 1597MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 691.518 io_bytes/op: 9056.73 miss_ratio: 0.0186572 max_rss_mb: 1982.26 1597MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1406.12 io_bytes/op: 1440.82 miss_ratio: 0.0185463 max_rss_mb: 1685.63 610MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 45.511 io_bytes/op: 2279.61 miss_ratio: 0.0290528 max_rss_mb: 615.137 610MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 43.386 io_bytes/op: 2217.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289282 max_rss_mb: 600.996 610MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 46.207 io_bytes/op: 2275.51 miss_ratio: 0.0290057 max_rss_mb: 637.934 610MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.879 io_bytes/op: 2283.1 miss_ratio: 0.0291253 max_rss_mb: 613.5 610MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 306.59 io_bytes/op: 2250 miss_ratio: 0.0288721 max_rss_mb: 683.402 610MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 269.176 io_bytes/op: 2187.86 miss_ratio: 0.0286938 max_rss_mb: 628.742 610MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 855.097 io_bytes/op: 2279.26 miss_ratio: 0.0288009 max_rss_mb: 733.062 610MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1121.47 io_bytes/op: 2244.29 miss_ratio: 0.0289046 max_rss_mb: 666.453 610MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 305.079 io_bytes/op: 2252.43 miss_ratio: 0.0288884 max_rss_mb: 723.457 610MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 269.583 io_bytes/op: 2204.58 miss_ratio: 0.0287001 max_rss_mb: 676.426 610MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 53.298 io_bytes/op: 8128.98 miss_ratio: 0.0292452 max_rss_mb: 956.273 610MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1301.09 io_bytes/op: 2246.04 miss_ratio: 0.0289171 max_rss_mb: 788.812 The new version is still winning every time, sometimes dramatically so, and we can tell from the maximum resident memory numbers (which contain some noise, by the way) that the new cache is not cheating on memory usage. IMPORTANT: The previous generation experimental clock cache appears to hit a serious bottleneck in the higher thread count configurations, presumably due to some of its waiting functionality. (The same bottleneck is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Now we consider even smaller cache sizes, with higher miss ratios, eviction work, etc. 233MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 10.557 io_bytes/op: 227040 miss_ratio: 0.0403105 max_rss_mb: 247.371 233MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.348 io_bytes/op: 112007 miss_ratio: 0.0372238 max_rss_mb: 245.293 233MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 6.365 io_bytes/op: 244854 miss_ratio: 0.0413873 max_rss_mb: 259.844 233MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 47.501 io_bytes/op: 2591.93 miss_ratio: 0.0330989 max_rss_mb: 242.461 233MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 96.498 io_bytes/op: 363379 miss_ratio: 0.0459966 max_rss_mb: 479.227 233MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 109.95 io_bytes/op: 314799 miss_ratio: 0.0450032 max_rss_mb: 400.738 233MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.353 io_bytes/op: 385397 miss_ratio: 0.048445 max_rss_mb: 500.688 233MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1088.95 io_bytes/op: 2567.02 miss_ratio: 0.0330593 max_rss_mb: 303.402 233MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 84.302 io_bytes/op: 378020 miss_ratio: 0.0466558 max_rss_mb: 1051.84 233MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 89.921 io_bytes/op: 338242 miss_ratio: 0.0460309 max_rss_mb: 812.785 233MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.588 io_bytes/op: 462833 miss_ratio: 0.0509158 max_rss_mb: 1109.94 233MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1299.26 io_bytes/op: 2565.94 miss_ratio: 0.0330531 max_rss_mb: 361.016 89MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.574 io_bytes/op: 5.35977e+06 miss_ratio: 0.274427 max_rss_mb: 91.3086 89MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.578 io_bytes/op: 5.16549e+06 miss_ratio: 0.27276 max_rss_mb: 96.8984 89MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.512 io_bytes/op: 4.13111e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242817 max_rss_mb: 119.441 89MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 48.172 io_bytes/op: 2709.76 miss_ratio: 0.0346162 max_rss_mb: 100.754 89MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 5.779 io_bytes/op: 6.14192e+06 miss_ratio: 0.320399 max_rss_mb: 311.812 89MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 5.601 io_bytes/op: 5.83838e+06 miss_ratio: 0.313123 max_rss_mb: 252.418 89MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.77 io_bytes/op: 3.99236e+06 miss_ratio: 0.236296 max_rss_mb: 396.422 89MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1064.97 io_bytes/op: 2687.23 miss_ratio: 0.0346134 max_rss_mb: 155.293 89MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 4.959 io_bytes/op: 6.20297e+06 miss_ratio: 0.323945 max_rss_mb: 823.43 89MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 4.962 io_bytes/op: 5.9601e+06 miss_ratio: 0.319857 max_rss_mb: 626.824 89MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.009 io_bytes/op: 4.1083e+06 miss_ratio: 0.242512 max_rss_mb: 1095.32 89MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1224.39 io_bytes/op: 2688.2 miss_ratio: 0.0346207 max_rss_mb: 218.223 ^ Now something interesting has happened: the new clock cache has gained a dramatic lead in the single-threaded case, and this is because the cache is so small, and full filters are so big, that dividing the cache into 64 shards leads to significant (random) imbalances in cache shards and excessive churn in imbalanced shards. This new clock cache only uses two shards for this configuration, and that helps to ensure that entries are part of a sufficiently big pool that their eviction order resembles the single-shard order. (This effect is not seen with partitioned index+filters.) Even smaller cache size: 34MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.198 io_bytes/op: 1.65342e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939466 max_rss_mb: 48.6914 34MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.201 io_bytes/op: 1.63416e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939081 max_rss_mb: 45.3281 34MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.448 io_bytes/op: 4.43957e+06 miss_ratio: 0.266749 max_rss_mb: 100.523 34MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 1.055 io_bytes/op: 1.85439e+06 miss_ratio: 0.107512 max_rss_mb: 75.3125 34MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.346 io_bytes/op: 1.64852e+07 miss_ratio: 0.93596 max_rss_mb: 180.48 34MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.431 io_bytes/op: 1.62857e+07 miss_ratio: 0.935693 max_rss_mb: 137.531 34MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.47 io_bytes/op: 4.89704e+06 miss_ratio: 0.295081 max_rss_mb: 392.465 34MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 8.19 io_bytes/op: 3.70456e+06 miss_ratio: 0.20826 max_rss_mb: 519.793 34MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.293 io_bytes/op: 1.64351e+07 miss_ratio: 0.931866 max_rss_mb: 449.484 34MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.34 io_bytes/op: 1.6219e+07 miss_ratio: 0.932023 max_rss_mb: 396.457 34MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 1.798 io_bytes/op: 5.4241e+06 miss_ratio: 0.324881 max_rss_mb: 1104.41 34MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 10.519 io_bytes/op: 2.39354e+06 miss_ratio: 0.136147 max_rss_mb: 1050.52 As the miss ratio gets higher (say, above 10%), the CPU time spent in eviction starts to erode the advantage of using fewer shards (13% miss rate much lower than 94%). LRU's O(1) eviction time can eventually pay off when there's enough block cache churn: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 0.195 io_bytes/op: 1.65732e+07 miss_ratio: 0.946604 max_rss_mb: 45.6328 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 0.197 io_bytes/op: 1.63793e+07 miss_ratio: 0.94661 max_rss_mb: 33.8633 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 0.519 io_bytes/op: 4.43316e+06 miss_ratio: 0.269379 max_rss_mb: 100.684 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 0.176 io_bytes/op: 1.54148e+07 miss_ratio: 0.91545 max_rss_mb: 66.2383 13MB 32thread base -> kops/s: 3.266 io_bytes/op: 1.65544e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943386 max_rss_mb: 132.492 13MB 32thread folly -> kops/s: 3.396 io_bytes/op: 1.63142e+07 miss_ratio: 0.943243 max_rss_mb: 101.863 13MB 32thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 2.758 io_bytes/op: 5.13714e+06 miss_ratio: 0.310652 max_rss_mb: 396.121 13MB 32thread new_clock -> kops/s: 3.11 io_bytes/op: 1.23419e+07 miss_ratio: 0.708425 max_rss_mb: 321.758 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 2.31 io_bytes/op: 1.64823e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939543 max_rss_mb: 425.539 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 2.339 io_bytes/op: 1.6242e+07 miss_ratio: 0.939966 max_rss_mb: 346.098 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 3.223 io_bytes/op: 5.76928e+06 miss_ratio: 0.345899 max_rss_mb: 1087.77 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 2.984 io_bytes/op: 1.05341e+07 miss_ratio: 0.606198 max_rss_mb: 898.27 gt_clock is clearly blowing way past its memory budget for lower miss rates and best throughput. new_clock also seems to be exceeding budgets, and this warrants more investigation but is not the use case we are targeting with the new cache. With partitioned index+filter, the miss ratio is much better, and although still high enough that the eviction CPU time is definitely offsetting mutex contention: 13MB 1thread base -> kops/s: 16.326 io_bytes/op: 23743.9 miss_ratio: 0.205362 max_rss_mb: 65.2852 13MB 1thread folly -> kops/s: 15.574 io_bytes/op: 19415 miss_ratio: 0.184157 max_rss_mb: 56.3516 13MB 1thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 14.459 io_bytes/op: 22873 miss_ratio: 0.198355 max_rss_mb: 63.9688 13MB 1thread new_clock -> kops/s: 16.34 io_bytes/op: 24386.5 miss_ratio: 0.210512 max_rss_mb: 61.707 13MB 128thread base -> kops/s: 289.786 io_bytes/op: 23710.9 miss_ratio: 0.205056 max_rss_mb: 103.57 13MB 128thread folly -> kops/s: 185.282 io_bytes/op: 19433.1 miss_ratio: 0.184275 max_rss_mb: 116.219 13MB 128thread gt_clock -> kops/s: 354.451 io_bytes/op: 23150.6 miss_ratio: 0.200495 max_rss_mb: 102.871 13MB 128thread new_clock -> kops/s: 295.359 io_bytes/op: 24626.4 miss_ratio: 0.212452 max_rss_mb: 121.109 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Test Plan: updated unit tests, stress/crash test runs including with TSAN, ASAN, UBSAN Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39368406 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5afc44da4c656f8f751b44552bbf27bd3ca6fef9
2 years ago
// Whether to reject insertion if cache reaches its full capacity.
std::atomic<bool> strict_capacity_limit_;
}; // class ClockCacheShard
Call experimental new clock cache HyperClockCache (#10684) Summary: This change establishes a distinctive name for the experimental new lock-free clock cache (originally developed by guidotag and revamped in PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10626). A few reasons: * We want to make it clear that this is a fundamentally different implementation vs. the old clock cache, to avoid people saying "I already tried clock cache." * We want to highlight the key feature: it's fast (especially under parallel load) * Because it requires an estimated charge per entry, it is not drop-in API compatible with old clock cache. This estimate might always be required for highest performance, and giving it a distinct name should reduce confusion about the distinct API requirements. * We might develop a variant requiring the same estimate parameter but with LRU eviction. In that case, using the name HyperLRUCache should make things more clear. (FastLRUCache is just a prototype that might soon be removed.) Some API detail: * To reduce copy-pasting parameter lists, etc. as in LRUCache construction, I have a `MakeSharedCache()` function on `HyperClockCacheOptions` instead of `NewHyperClockCache()`. * Changes -cache_type=clock_cache to -cache_type=hyper_clock_cache for applicable tools. I think this is more consistent / sustainable for reasons already stated. For performance tests see https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10684 Test Plan: no interesting functional changes; tests updated Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39547800 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5c0fe1b5cf3cb680ab369b928c8569682b9795bf
2 years ago
class HyperClockCache
#ifdef NDEBUG
final
#endif
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
: public ShardedCache<ClockCacheShard<HyperClockTable>> {
public:
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
using Shard = ClockCacheShard<HyperClockTable>;
Call experimental new clock cache HyperClockCache (#10684) Summary: This change establishes a distinctive name for the experimental new lock-free clock cache (originally developed by guidotag and revamped in PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10626). A few reasons: * We want to make it clear that this is a fundamentally different implementation vs. the old clock cache, to avoid people saying "I already tried clock cache." * We want to highlight the key feature: it's fast (especially under parallel load) * Because it requires an estimated charge per entry, it is not drop-in API compatible with old clock cache. This estimate might always be required for highest performance, and giving it a distinct name should reduce confusion about the distinct API requirements. * We might develop a variant requiring the same estimate parameter but with LRU eviction. In that case, using the name HyperLRUCache should make things more clear. (FastLRUCache is just a prototype that might soon be removed.) Some API detail: * To reduce copy-pasting parameter lists, etc. as in LRUCache construction, I have a `MakeSharedCache()` function on `HyperClockCacheOptions` instead of `NewHyperClockCache()`. * Changes -cache_type=clock_cache to -cache_type=hyper_clock_cache for applicable tools. I think this is more consistent / sustainable for reasons already stated. For performance tests see https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10684 Test Plan: no interesting functional changes; tests updated Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39547800 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5c0fe1b5cf3cb680ab369b928c8569682b9795bf
2 years ago
HyperClockCache(size_t capacity, size_t estimated_value_size,
int num_shard_bits, bool strict_capacity_limit,
Refactor ShardedCache for more sharing, static polymorphism (#10801) Summary: The motivations for this change include * Free up space in ClockHandle so that we can add data for secondary cache handling while still keeping within single cache line (64 byte) size. * This change frees up space by eliminating the need for the `hash` field by making the fixed-size key itself a hash, using a 128-bit bijective (lossless) hash. * Generally more customizability of ShardedCache (such as hashing) without worrying about virtual call overheads * ShardedCache now uses static polymorphism (template) instead of dynamic polymorphism (virtual overrides) for the CacheShard. No obvious performance benefit is seen from the change (as mostly expected; most calls to virtual functions in CacheShard could already be optimized to static calls), but offers more flexibility without incurring the runtime cost of adhering to a common interface (without type parameters or static callbacks). * You'll also notice less `reinterpret_cast`ing and other boilerplate in the Cache implementations, as this can go in ShardedCache. More detail: * Don't have LRUCacheShard maintain `std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>` copies (extra refcount) when LRUCache can be in charge of keeping a `shared_ptr`. * Renamed `capacity_mutex_` to `config_mutex_` to better represent the scope of what it guards. * Some preparation for 64-bit hash and indexing in LRUCache, but didn't include the full change because of slight performance regression. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10801 Test Plan: Unit test updates were non-trivial because of major changes to the ClockCacheShard interface in handling of key vs. hash. Performance: Create with `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -num=30000000 -disable_wal=1 -bloom_bits=16` Test with ``` TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench -benchmarks=readrandom[-X1000] -readonly -num=30000000 -bloom_bits=16 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=1 -cache_size=610000000 -duration 20 -threads=16 ``` Before: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321147 (± 253) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 150 runs] : 321530 (± 326) ops/sec` So possibly ~0.1% improvement. And with `-cache_type=hyper_clock_cache`: Before: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 614126 (± 7978) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 30 runs] : 645349 (± 8087) ops/sec` So roughly 5% improvement! Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40252236 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ff8fc70ef569585edc95bcbaaa0386f61355ae5b
2 years ago
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy,
std::shared_ptr<MemoryAllocator> memory_allocator);
Call experimental new clock cache HyperClockCache (#10684) Summary: This change establishes a distinctive name for the experimental new lock-free clock cache (originally developed by guidotag and revamped in PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10626). A few reasons: * We want to make it clear that this is a fundamentally different implementation vs. the old clock cache, to avoid people saying "I already tried clock cache." * We want to highlight the key feature: it's fast (especially under parallel load) * Because it requires an estimated charge per entry, it is not drop-in API compatible with old clock cache. This estimate might always be required for highest performance, and giving it a distinct name should reduce confusion about the distinct API requirements. * We might develop a variant requiring the same estimate parameter but with LRU eviction. In that case, using the name HyperLRUCache should make things more clear. (FastLRUCache is just a prototype that might soon be removed.) Some API detail: * To reduce copy-pasting parameter lists, etc. as in LRUCache construction, I have a `MakeSharedCache()` function on `HyperClockCacheOptions` instead of `NewHyperClockCache()`. * Changes -cache_type=clock_cache to -cache_type=hyper_clock_cache for applicable tools. I think this is more consistent / sustainable for reasons already stated. For performance tests see https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10684 Test Plan: no interesting functional changes; tests updated Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39547800 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5c0fe1b5cf3cb680ab369b928c8569682b9795bf
2 years ago
const char* Name() const override { return "HyperClockCache"; }
void* Value(Handle* handle) override;
size_t GetCharge(Handle* handle) const override;
DeleterFn GetDeleter(Handle* handle) const override;
Observe and warn about misconfigured HyperClockCache (#10965) Summary: Background. One of the core risks of chosing HyperClockCache is ending up with degraded performance if estimated_entry_charge is very significantly wrong. Too low leads to under-utilized hash table, which wastes a bit of (tracked) memory and likely increases access times due to larger working set size (more TLB misses). Too high leads to fully populated hash table (at some limit with reasonable lookup performance) and not being able to cache as many objects as the memory limit would allow. In either case, performance degradation is graceful/continuous but can be quite significant. For example, cutting block size in half without updating estimated_entry_charge could lead to a large portion of configured block cache memory (up to roughly 1/3) going unused. Fix. This change adds a mechanism through which the DB periodically probes the block cache(s) for "problems" to report, and adds diagnostics to the HyperClockCache for bad estimated_entry_charge. The periodic probing is currently done with DumpStats / stats_dump_period_sec, and diagnostics reported to info_log (normally LOG file). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10965 Test Plan: unit test included. Doesn't cover all the implemented subtleties of reporting, but ensures basics of when to report or not. Also manual testing with db_bench. Create db with ``` ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,flush --num=3000000 --disable_wal=1 ``` Use and check LOG file for HyperClockCache for various block sizes (used as estimated_entry_charge) ``` ./db_bench --use_existing_db --benchmarks=readrandom --num=3000000 --duration=20 --stats_dump_period_sec=8 --cache_type=hyper_clock_cache -block_size=XXXX ``` Seeing warnings / errors or not as expected. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D41406932 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 4ca56162b73017e4b9cec2cad74466f49c27a0a7
2 years ago
void ReportProblems(
const std::shared_ptr<Logger>& /*info_log*/) const override;
Call experimental new clock cache HyperClockCache (#10684) Summary: This change establishes a distinctive name for the experimental new lock-free clock cache (originally developed by guidotag and revamped in PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10626). A few reasons: * We want to make it clear that this is a fundamentally different implementation vs. the old clock cache, to avoid people saying "I already tried clock cache." * We want to highlight the key feature: it's fast (especially under parallel load) * Because it requires an estimated charge per entry, it is not drop-in API compatible with old clock cache. This estimate might always be required for highest performance, and giving it a distinct name should reduce confusion about the distinct API requirements. * We might develop a variant requiring the same estimate parameter but with LRU eviction. In that case, using the name HyperLRUCache should make things more clear. (FastLRUCache is just a prototype that might soon be removed.) Some API detail: * To reduce copy-pasting parameter lists, etc. as in LRUCache construction, I have a `MakeSharedCache()` function on `HyperClockCacheOptions` instead of `NewHyperClockCache()`. * Changes -cache_type=clock_cache to -cache_type=hyper_clock_cache for applicable tools. I think this is more consistent / sustainable for reasons already stated. For performance tests see https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10626 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10684 Test Plan: no interesting functional changes; tests updated Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D39547800 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 5c0fe1b5cf3cb680ab369b928c8569682b9795bf
2 years ago
}; // class HyperClockCache
Refactor (Hyper)ClockCache code (#10887) Summary: For clean-up and in preparation for some other anticipated changes, including * A new dynamically-scaling variant of HyperClockCache * SecondaryCache support for HyperClockCache This change does some refactoring for current and future code sharing and reusability. (Including follow-up on https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10843) ## clock_cache.h * TBD whether new variant will be a HyperClockCache or use some other name, so namespace is just clock_cache for the family of structures. * A number of helper functions introduced and used. * Pre-emptively split ClockHandle (shared among lock-free clock cache variants) and HandleImpl (specific to a kind of Table), and introduce template to plug new Table implementation into ClockCacheShard. ## clock_cache.cc * Mostly using helper functions. Some things like `Rollback()` and `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` were not combined because `Rollback()` is Table-specific while `FreeDataMarkEmpty()` can be used with different table implementations. * Performance testing indicated that despite more opportunities for parallelism, making a local copy of handle data for processing after marking an entry empty was slower than doing that processing before marking the entry empty (but after marking it "under construction"), thus avoiding a few words of copying data. At least for now, this answers the "TODO? Delay freeing?" questions (no). Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10887 Test Plan: fixed a unit testing gap; other minor test updates for refactoring No functionality change ## Performance Same setup as https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10801: Before: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 627992 (± 5124) ops/sec` After: `readrandom [AVG 81 runs] : 637512 (± 4866) ops/sec` I've been getting some inconsistent results on restarts like the system is not being fair to the two processes, so I'm not sure there's such a real difference. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D40959240 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 0a8f3646b3bdb5bc7aaad60b26790b0779189949
2 years ago
} // namespace clock_cache
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE