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/utilities/transactions/optimistic_transaction_db_i...

112 lines
3.7 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).
#pragma once
#include <algorithm>
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
#include <cstdint>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include "rocksdb/db.h"
#include "rocksdb/options.h"
#include "rocksdb/utilities/optimistic_transaction_db.h"
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
#include "util/cast_util.h"
#include "util/mutexlock.h"
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
class OccLockBucketsImplBase : public OccLockBuckets {
public:
virtual port::Mutex& GetLockBucket(const Slice& key, uint64_t seed) = 0;
};
template <bool cache_aligned>
class OccLockBucketsImpl : public OccLockBucketsImplBase {
public:
explicit OccLockBucketsImpl(size_t bucket_count) : locks_(bucket_count) {}
port::Mutex& GetLockBucket(const Slice& key, uint64_t seed) override {
return locks_.Get(key, seed);
}
size_t ApproximateMemoryUsage() const override {
return locks_.ApproximateMemoryUsage();
}
private:
// TODO: investigate optionally using folly::MicroLock to majorly save space
using M = std::conditional_t<cache_aligned, CacheAlignedWrapper<port::Mutex>,
port::Mutex>;
Striped<M> locks_;
};
class OptimisticTransactionDBImpl : public OptimisticTransactionDB {
public:
explicit OptimisticTransactionDBImpl(
DB* db, const OptimisticTransactionDBOptions& occ_options,
bool take_ownership = true)
: OptimisticTransactionDB(db),
db_owner_(take_ownership),
validate_policy_(occ_options.validate_policy) {
if (validate_policy_ == OccValidationPolicy::kValidateParallel) {
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
auto bucketed_locks = occ_options.shared_lock_buckets;
if (!bucketed_locks) {
uint32_t bucket_count = std::max(16u, occ_options.occ_lock_buckets);
bucketed_locks = MakeSharedOccLockBuckets(bucket_count);
}
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
bucketed_locks_ = static_cast_with_check<OccLockBucketsImplBase>(
std::move(bucketed_locks));
}
}
~OptimisticTransactionDBImpl() {
// Prevent this stackable from destroying
// base db
if (!db_owner_) {
db_ = nullptr;
}
}
Transaction* BeginTransaction(const WriteOptions& write_options,
const OptimisticTransactionOptions& txn_options,
Transaction* old_txn) override;
// Transactional `DeleteRange()` is not yet supported.
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
using StackableDB::DeleteRange;
virtual Status DeleteRange(const WriteOptions&, ColumnFamilyHandle*,
const Slice&, const Slice&) override {
return Status::NotSupported();
}
// Range deletions also must not be snuck into `WriteBatch`es as they are
// incompatible with `OptimisticTransactionDB`.
virtual Status Write(const WriteOptions& write_opts,
WriteBatch* batch) override {
if (batch->HasDeleteRange()) {
return Status::NotSupported();
}
return OptimisticTransactionDB::Write(write_opts, batch);
}
OccValidationPolicy GetValidatePolicy() const { return validate_policy_; }
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
port::Mutex& GetLockBucket(const Slice& key, uint64_t seed) {
return bucketed_locks_->GetLockBucket(key, seed);
}
private:
Improve memory efficiency of many OptimisticTransactionDBs (#11439) Summary: Currently it's easy to use a ton of memory with many small OptimisticTransactionDB instances, because each one by default allocates a million mutexes (40 bytes each on my compiler) for validating transactions. It even puts a lot of pressure on the allocator by allocating each one individually! In this change: * Create a new object and option that enables sharing these buckets of mutexes between instances. This is generally good for load balancing potential contention as various DBs become hotter or colder with txn writes. About the only cases where this sharing wouldn't make sense (e.g. each DB usually written by one thread) are cases that would be better off with OccValidationPolicy::kValidateSerial which doesn't use the buckets anyway. * Allocate the mutexes in a contiguous array, for efficiency * Add an option to ensure the mutexes are cache-aligned. In several other places we use cache-aligned mutexes but OptimisticTransactionDB historically does not. It should be a space-time trade-off the user can choose. * Provide some visibility into the memory used by the mutex buckets with an ApproximateMemoryUsage() function (also used in unit testing) * Share code with other users of "striped" mutexes, appropriate refactoring for customization & efficiency (e.g. using FastRange instead of modulus) Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11439 Test Plan: unit tests added. Ran sized-up versions of stress test in unit test, including a before-and-after performance test showing no consistent difference. (NOTE: OptimisticTransactionDB not currently covered by db_stress!) Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D45796393 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: ae2b3a26ad91ceeec15debcdc63ff48df6736a54
2 years ago
std::shared_ptr<OccLockBucketsImplBase> bucketed_locks_;
bool db_owner_;
const OccValidationPolicy validate_policy_;
void ReinitializeTransaction(Transaction* txn,
const WriteOptions& write_options,
const OptimisticTransactionOptions& txn_options =
OptimisticTransactionOptions());
};
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE