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.cc

1221 lines
48 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.
#include "cache/clock_cache.h"
#include <cassert>
#include <functional>
#include "monitoring/perf_context_imp.h"
#include "monitoring/statistics.h"
#include "port/lang.h"
#include "util/hash.h"
#include "util/math.h"
#include "util/random.h"
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
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
namespace hyper_clock_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
static_assert(sizeof(ClockHandle) == 64U,
"Expecting size / alignment with common cache line size");
ClockHandleTable::ClockHandleTable(int hash_bits, bool initial_charge_metadata)
: length_bits_(hash_bits),
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
length_bits_mask_(Lower32of64((uint64_t{1} << length_bits_) - 1)),
occupancy_limit_(static_cast<uint32_t>((uint64_t{1} << length_bits_) *
kStrictLoadFactor)),
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_(new ClockHandle[size_t{1} << length_bits_]) {
assert(hash_bits <= 32); // FIXME: ensure no overlap with sharding bits
if (initial_charge_metadata) {
usage_ += size_t{GetTableSize()} * sizeof(ClockHandle);
}
}
ClockHandleTable::~ClockHandleTable() {
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
// Assumes there are no references or active operations on any slot/element
// in the table.
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < GetTableSize(); i++) {
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
ClockHandle& h = array_[i];
switch (h.meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) {
case ClockHandle::kStateEmpty:
// noop
break;
case ClockHandle::kStateInvisible: // rare but possible
case ClockHandle::kStateVisible:
h.FreeData();
#ifndef NDEBUG
Rollback(h.hash, &h);
usage_.fetch_sub(h.total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
occupancy_.fetch_sub(1U, std::memory_order_relaxed);
#endif
break;
// otherwise
default:
assert(false);
break;
}
}
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
#ifndef NDEBUG
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < GetTableSize(); i++) {
assert(array_[i].displacements.load() == 0);
}
#endif
assert(usage_.load() == 0 ||
usage_.load() == size_t{GetTableSize()} * sizeof(ClockHandle));
assert(occupancy_ == 0);
}
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 an entry doesn't receive clock updates but is repeatedly referenced &
// released, the acquire and release counters could overflow without some
// intervention. This is that intervention, which should be inexpensive
// because it only incurs a simple, very predictable check. (Applying a bit
// mask in addition to an increment to every Release likely would be
// relatively expensive, because it's an extra atomic update.)
//
// We do have to assume that we never have many millions of simultaneous
// references to a cache handle, because we cannot represent so many
// references with the difference in counters, masked to the number of
// counter bits. Similarly, we assume there aren't millions of threads
// holding transient references (which might be "undone" rather than
// released by the way).
//
// Consider these possible states for each counter:
// low: less than kMaxCountdown
// medium: kMaxCountdown to half way to overflow + kMaxCountdown
// high: half way to overflow + kMaxCountdown, or greater
//
// And these possible states for the combination of counters:
// acquire / release
// ------- -------
// low low - Normal / common, with caveats (see below)
// medium low - Can happen while holding some refs
// high low - Violates assumptions (too many refs)
// low medium - Violates assumptions (refs underflow, etc.)
// medium medium - Normal (very read heavy cache)
// high medium - Can happen while holding some refs
// low high - This function is supposed to prevent
// medium high - Violates assumptions (refs underflow, etc.)
// high high - Needs CorrectNearOverflow
//
// Basically, this function detects (high, high) state (inferred from
// release alone being high) and bumps it back down to (medium, medium)
// state with the same refcount and the same logical countdown counter
// (everything > kMaxCountdown is logically the same). Note that bumping
// down to (low, low) would modify the countdown counter, so is "reserved"
// in a sense.
//
// If near-overflow correction is triggered here, there's no guarantee
// that another thread hasn't freed the entry and replaced it with another.
// Therefore, it must be the case that the correction does not affect
// entries unless they are very old (many millions of acquire-release cycles).
// (Our bit manipulation is indeed idempotent and only affects entries in
// exceptional cases.) We assume a pre-empted thread will not stall that long.
// If it did, the state could be corrupted in the (unlikely) case that the top
// bit of the acquire counter is set but not the release counter, and thus
// we only clear the top bit of the acquire counter on resumption. It would
// then appear that there are too many refs and the entry would be permanently
// pinned (which is not terrible for an exceptionally rare occurrence), unless
// it is referenced enough (at least kMaxCountdown more times) for the release
// counter to reach "high" state again and bumped back to "medium." (This
// motivates only checking for release counter in high state, not both in high
// state.)
inline void CorrectNearOverflow(uint64_t old_meta,
std::atomic<uint64_t>& meta) {
// We clear both top-most counter bits at the same time.
constexpr uint64_t kCounterTopBit = uint64_t{1}
<< (ClockHandle::kCounterNumBits - 1);
constexpr uint64_t kClearBits =
(kCounterTopBit << ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) |
(kCounterTopBit << ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift);
// A simple check that allows us to initiate clearing the top bits for
// a large portion of the "high" state space on release counter.
constexpr uint64_t kCheckBits =
(kCounterTopBit | (ClockHandle::kMaxCountdown + 1))
<< ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift;
if (UNLIKELY(old_meta & kCheckBits)) {
meta.fetch_and(~kClearBits, std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
}
Status ClockHandleTable::Insert(const ClockHandleMoreData& proto,
ClockHandle** handle, Cache::Priority priority,
size_t capacity, bool strict_capacity_limit) {
// Do we have the available occupancy? Optimistically assume we do
// and deal with it if we don't.
uint32_t old_occupancy = occupancy_.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_acquire);
auto revert_occupancy_fn = [&]() {
occupancy_.fetch_sub(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
};
// Whether we over-committed and need an eviction to make up for it
bool need_evict_for_occupancy = old_occupancy >= occupancy_limit_;
// Usage/capacity handling is somewhat different depending on
// strict_capacity_limit, but mostly pessimistic.
bool use_detached_insert = false;
const size_t total_charge = proto.total_charge;
if (strict_capacity_limit) {
if (total_charge > capacity) {
assert(!use_detached_insert);
revert_occupancy_fn();
return Status::MemoryLimit(
"Cache entry too large for a single cache shard: " +
std::to_string(total_charge) + " > " + std::to_string(capacity));
}
// Grab any available capacity, and free up any more required.
size_t old_usage = usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
size_t new_usage;
if (LIKELY(old_usage != capacity)) {
do {
new_usage = std::min(capacity, old_usage + total_charge);
} while (!usage_.compare_exchange_weak(old_usage, new_usage,
std::memory_order_relaxed));
} else {
new_usage = old_usage;
}
// How much do we need to evict then?
size_t need_evict_charge = old_usage + total_charge - new_usage;
size_t request_evict_charge = need_evict_charge;
if (UNLIKELY(need_evict_for_occupancy) && request_evict_charge == 0) {
// Require at least 1 eviction.
request_evict_charge = 1;
}
if (request_evict_charge > 0) {
size_t evicted_charge = 0;
uint32_t evicted_count = 0;
Evict(request_evict_charge, &evicted_charge, &evicted_count);
occupancy_.fetch_sub(evicted_count, std::memory_order_release);
if (LIKELY(evicted_charge > need_evict_charge)) {
assert(evicted_count > 0);
// Evicted more than enough
usage_.fetch_sub(evicted_charge - need_evict_charge,
std::memory_order_relaxed);
} else if (evicted_charge < need_evict_charge ||
(UNLIKELY(need_evict_for_occupancy) && evicted_count == 0)) {
// Roll back to old usage minus evicted
usage_.fetch_sub(evicted_charge + (new_usage - old_usage),
std::memory_order_relaxed);
assert(!use_detached_insert);
revert_occupancy_fn();
if (evicted_charge < need_evict_charge) {
return Status::MemoryLimit(
"Insert failed because unable to evict entries to stay within "
"capacity limit.");
} else {
return Status::MemoryLimit(
"Insert failed because unable to evict entries to stay within "
"table occupancy limit.");
}
}
// If we needed to evict something and we are proceeding, we must have
// evicted something.
assert(evicted_count > 0);
}
} else {
// Case strict_capacity_limit == false
// For simplicity, we consider that either the cache can accept the insert
// with no evictions, or we must evict enough to make (at least) enough
// space. It could lead to unnecessary failures or excessive evictions in
// some extreme cases, but allows a fast, simple protocol. If we allow a
// race to get us over capacity, then we might never get back to capacity
// limit if the sizes of entries allow each insertion to evict the minimum
// charge. Thus, we should evict some extra if it's not a signifcant
// portion of the shard capacity. This can have the side benefit of
// involving fewer threads in eviction.
size_t old_usage = usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
size_t need_evict_charge;
// NOTE: if total_charge > old_usage, there isn't yet enough to evict
// `total_charge` amount. Even if we only try to evict `old_usage` amount,
// there's likely something referenced and we would eat CPU looking for
// enough to evict.
if (old_usage + total_charge <= capacity || total_charge > old_usage) {
// Good enough for me (might run over with a race)
need_evict_charge = 0;
} else {
// Try to evict enough space, and maybe some extra
need_evict_charge = total_charge;
if (old_usage > capacity) {
// Not too much to avoid thundering herd while avoiding strict
// synchronization
need_evict_charge += std::min(capacity / 1024, total_charge) + 1;
}
}
if (UNLIKELY(need_evict_for_occupancy) && need_evict_charge == 0) {
// Special case: require at least 1 eviction if we only have to
// deal with occupancy
need_evict_charge = 1;
}
size_t evicted_charge = 0;
uint32_t evicted_count = 0;
if (need_evict_charge > 0) {
Evict(need_evict_charge, &evicted_charge, &evicted_count);
// Deal with potential occupancy deficit
if (UNLIKELY(need_evict_for_occupancy) && evicted_count == 0) {
assert(evicted_charge == 0);
revert_occupancy_fn();
if (handle == nullptr) {
// Don't insert the entry but still return ok, as if the entry
// inserted into cache and evicted immediately.
proto.FreeData();
return Status::OK();
} else {
use_detached_insert = true;
}
} else {
// Update occupancy for evictions
occupancy_.fetch_sub(evicted_count, std::memory_order_release);
}
}
// Track new usage even if we weren't able to evict enough
usage_.fetch_add(total_charge - evicted_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
// No underflow
assert(usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) < SIZE_MAX / 2);
}
auto revert_usage_fn = [&]() {
usage_.fetch_sub(total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
// No underflow
assert(usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) < SIZE_MAX / 2);
};
if (!use_detached_insert) {
// Attempt a table insert, but abort if we find an existing entry for the
// key. If we were to overwrite old entries, we would either
// * Have to gain ownership over an existing entry to overwrite it, which
// would only work if there are no outstanding (read) references and would
// create a small gap in availability of the entry (old or new) to lookups.
// * Have to insert into a suboptimal location (more probes) so that the
// old entry can be kept around as well.
// Set initial clock data from priority
// TODO: configuration parameters for priority handling and clock cycle
// count?
uint64_t initial_countdown;
switch (priority) {
case Cache::Priority::HIGH:
initial_countdown = ClockHandle::kHighCountdown;
break;
default:
assert(false);
FALLTHROUGH_INTENDED;
case Cache::Priority::LOW:
initial_countdown = ClockHandle::kLowCountdown;
break;
case Cache::Priority::BOTTOM:
initial_countdown = ClockHandle::kBottomCountdown;
break;
}
assert(initial_countdown > 0);
uint32_t probe = 0;
ClockHandle* e = FindSlot(
proto.hash,
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
// Optimistically transition the slot from "empty" to
// "under construction" (no effect on other states)
uint64_t old_meta =
h->meta.fetch_or(uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateOccupiedBit}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift,
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
uint64_t old_state = old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift;
if (old_state == ClockHandle::kStateEmpty) {
// We've started inserting into an available slot, and taken
// ownership Save data fields
ClockHandleMoreData* h_alias = h;
*h_alias = proto;
// Transition from "under construction" state to "visible" state
uint64_t new_meta = uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateVisible}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift;
// Maybe with an outstanding reference
new_meta |= initial_countdown << ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift;
new_meta |= (initial_countdown - (handle != nullptr))
<< ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift;
#ifndef NDEBUG
// Save the state transition, with assertion
old_meta = h->meta.exchange(new_meta, std::memory_order_release);
assert(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateConstruction);
#else
// Save the state transition
h->meta.store(new_meta, std::memory_order_release);
#endif
return true;
} else if (old_state != ClockHandle::kStateVisible) {
// Slot not usable / touchable now
return false;
}
// Existing, visible entry, which might be a match.
// But first, we need to acquire a ref to read it. In fact, number of
// refs for initial countdown, so that we boost the clock state if
// this is a match.
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(
ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement * initial_countdown,
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
// Like Lookup
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateVisible) {
// Acquired a read reference
if (h->key == proto.key) {
// Match. Release in a way that boosts the clock state
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(
ClockHandle::kReleaseIncrement * initial_countdown,
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
// Correct for possible (but rare) overflow
CorrectNearOverflow(old_meta, h->meta);
// Insert detached instead (only if return handle needed)
use_detached_insert = true;
return true;
} else {
// Mismatch. Pretend we never took the reference
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_sub(
ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement * initial_countdown,
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
}
} else if (UNLIKELY((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateInvisible)) {
// Pretend we never took the reference
// WART: there's a tiny chance we release last ref to invisible
// entry here. If that happens, we let eviction take care of it.
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_sub(
ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement * initial_countdown,
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
} else {
// For other states, incrementing the acquire counter has no effect
// so we don't need to undo it.
// Slot not usable / touchable now.
}
(void)old_meta;
return false;
},
[&](ClockHandle* /*h*/) { return false; },
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
h->displacements.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
},
probe);
if (e == nullptr) {
// Occupancy check and never abort FindSlot above should generally
// prevent this, except it's theoretically possible for other threads
// to evict and replace entries in the right order to hit every slot
// when it is populated. Assuming random hashing, the chance of that
// should be no higher than pow(kStrictLoadFactor, n) for n slots.
// That should be infeasible for roughly n >= 256, so if this assertion
// fails, that suggests something is going wrong.
assert(GetTableSize() < 256);
use_detached_insert = true;
}
if (!use_detached_insert) {
// Successfully inserted
if (handle) {
*handle = e;
}
return Status::OK();
}
// Roll back table insertion
Rollback(proto.hash, e);
revert_occupancy_fn();
// Maybe fall back on detached insert
if (handle == nullptr) {
revert_usage_fn();
// As if unrefed entry immdiately evicted
proto.FreeData();
return Status::OK();
}
}
// Run detached insert
assert(use_detached_insert);
ClockHandle* h = new ClockHandle();
ClockHandleMoreData* h_alias = h;
*h_alias = proto;
h->detached = true;
// Single reference (detached entries only created if returning a refed
// Handle back to user)
uint64_t meta = uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateInvisible}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift;
meta |= uint64_t{1} << ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift;
h->meta.store(meta, std::memory_order_release);
// Keep track of usage
detached_usage_.fetch_add(total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
*handle = h;
// The OkOverwritten status is used to count "redundant" insertions into
// block cache. This implementation doesn't strictly check for redundant
// insertions, but we instead are probably interested in how many insertions
// didn't go into the table (instead "detached"), which could be redundant
// Insert or some other reason (use_detached_insert reasons above).
return Status::OkOverwritten();
}
ClockHandle* ClockHandleTable::Lookup(const CacheKeyBytes& key, uint32_t hash) {
uint32_t probe = 0;
ClockHandle* e = FindSlot(
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
hash,
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
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
// Mostly branch-free version (similar performance)
/*
uint64_t old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
bool Shareable = (old_meta >> (ClockHandle::kStateShift + 1)) & 1U;
bool visible = (old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) & 1U;
bool match = (h->key == key) & visible;
h->meta.fetch_sub(static_cast<uint64_t>(Shareable & !match) <<
ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift, std::memory_order_release); return
match;
*/
// Optimistic lookup should pay off when the table is relatively
// sparse.
constexpr bool kOptimisticLookup = true;
uint64_t old_meta;
if (!kOptimisticLookup) {
old_meta = h->meta.load(std::memory_order_acquire);
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) !=
ClockHandle::kStateVisible) {
return false;
}
}
// (Optimistically) increment acquire counter
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
// Check if it's an entry visible to lookups
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateVisible) {
// Acquired a read reference
if (h->key == key) {
// Match
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
} else {
// Mismatch. Pretend we never took the reference
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_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
} else if (UNLIKELY((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateInvisible)) {
// Pretend we never took the reference
// WART: there's a tiny chance we release last ref to invisible
// entry here. If that happens, we let eviction take care of it.
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_release);
} else {
// For other states, incrementing the acquire counter has no effect
// so we don't need to undo it. Furthermore, we cannot safely undo
// it because we did not acquire a read reference to lock the
// entry in a Shareable state.
}
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)old_meta;
return false;
},
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
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
return h->displacements.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) == 0;
},
[&](ClockHandle* /*h*/) {}, probe);
return e;
}
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 ClockHandleTable::Release(ClockHandle* h, bool useful,
bool erase_if_last_ref) {
// In contrast with LRUCache's Release, this function won't delete the handle
// when the cache is above capacity and the reference is the last one. Space
// is only freed up by EvictFromClock (called by Insert when space is needed)
// and Erase. We do this to avoid an extra atomic read of the variable usage_.
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
uint64_t old_meta;
if (useful) {
// Increment release counter to indicate was used
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kReleaseIncrement,
std::memory_order_release);
} else {
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
// Decrement acquire counter to pretend it never happened
old_meta = h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_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
assert((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) &
ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit);
// No underflow
assert(((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask) !=
((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask));
if (erase_if_last_ref || UNLIKELY(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateInvisible)) {
// Update for last fetch_add op
if (useful) {
old_meta += ClockHandle::kReleaseIncrement;
} else {
old_meta -= ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement;
}
// Take ownership if no refs
do {
uint64_t refcount = ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) -
(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift)) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
if (refcount != 0) {
// Not last ref at some point in time during this Release call
// Correct for possible (but rare) overflow
CorrectNearOverflow(old_meta, h->meta);
return false;
}
if ((old_meta & (uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift)) == 0) {
// Someone else took ownership
return false;
}
// Note that there's a small chance that we release, another thread
// replaces this entry with another, reaches zero refs, and then we end
// up erasing that other entry. That's an acceptable risk / imprecision.
} while (!h->meta.compare_exchange_weak(
old_meta,
uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateConstruction} << ClockHandle::kStateShift,
std::memory_order_acquire));
// Took ownership
// TODO? Delay freeing?
h->FreeData();
size_t total_charge = h->total_charge;
if (UNLIKELY(h->detached)) {
// Delete detached handle
delete h;
detached_usage_.fetch_sub(total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
} else {
uint32_t hash = h->hash;
#ifndef NDEBUG
// Mark slot as empty, with assertion
old_meta = h->meta.exchange(0, std::memory_order_release);
assert(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateConstruction);
#else
// Mark slot as empty
h->meta.store(0, std::memory_order_release);
#endif
occupancy_.fetch_sub(1U, std::memory_order_release);
Rollback(hash, h);
}
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_.fetch_sub(total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
assert(usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) < SIZE_MAX / 2);
return true;
} else {
// Correct for possible (but rare) overflow
CorrectNearOverflow(old_meta, h->meta);
return false;
}
}
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 ClockHandleTable::Ref(ClockHandle& h) {
// Increment acquire counter
uint64_t old_meta = h.meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
assert((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) &
ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit);
(void)old_meta;
}
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 ClockHandleTable::TEST_RefN(ClockHandle& h, size_t n) {
// Increment acquire counter
uint64_t old_meta = h.meta.fetch_add(n * ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
assert((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) &
ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit);
(void)old_meta;
}
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 ClockHandleTable::TEST_ReleaseN(ClockHandle* h, size_t n) {
if (n > 0) {
// Split into n - 1 and 1 steps.
uint64_t old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(
(n - 1) * ClockHandle::kReleaseIncrement, std::memory_order_acquire);
assert((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) &
ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit);
(void)old_meta;
Release(h, /*useful*/ true, /*erase_if_last_ref*/ false);
}
}
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 ClockHandleTable::Erase(const CacheKeyBytes& key, uint32_t hash) {
uint32_t probe = 0;
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)FindSlot(
hash,
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
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
// Could be multiple entries in rare cases. Erase them all.
// Optimistically increment acquire counter
uint64_t old_meta = h->meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
// Check if it's an entry visible to lookups
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateVisible) {
// Acquired a read reference
if (h->key == key) {
// Match. Set invisible.
old_meta =
h->meta.fetch_and(~(uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateVisibleBit}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift),
std::memory_order_acq_rel);
// Apply update to local copy
old_meta &= ~(uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateVisibleBit}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift);
for (;;) {
uint64_t refcount =
((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) -
(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift)) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
assert(refcount > 0);
if (refcount > 1) {
// Not last ref at some point in time during this Erase call
// Pretend we never took the reference
h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_release);
break;
} else if (h->meta.compare_exchange_weak(
old_meta, uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateConstruction}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift)) {
// Took ownership
assert(hash == h->hash);
// TODO? Delay freeing?
h->FreeData();
usage_.fetch_sub(h->total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
assert(usage_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) < SIZE_MAX / 2);
#ifndef NDEBUG
// Mark slot as empty, with assertion
old_meta = h->meta.exchange(0, std::memory_order_release);
assert(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateConstruction);
#else
// Mark slot as empty
h->meta.store(0, std::memory_order_release);
#endif
occupancy_.fetch_sub(1U, std::memory_order_release);
Rollback(hash, h);
break;
}
}
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
} else {
// Mismatch. Pretend we never took the reference
h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_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
} else if (UNLIKELY((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) ==
ClockHandle::kStateInvisible)) {
// Pretend we never took the reference
// WART: there's a tiny chance we release last ref to invisible
// entry here. If that happens, we let eviction take care of it.
h->meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_release);
} else {
// For other states, incrementing the acquire counter has no effect
// so we don't need to undo it.
}
return false;
},
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
[&](ClockHandle* h) {
return h->displacements.load(std::memory_order_relaxed) == 0;
},
[&](ClockHandle* /*h*/) {}, 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
void ClockHandleTable::ConstApplyToEntriesRange(
std::function<void(const ClockHandle&)> func, uint32_t index_begin,
uint32_t index_end, bool apply_if_will_be_deleted) const {
uint64_t check_state_mask = ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit;
if (!apply_if_will_be_deleted) {
check_state_mask |= ClockHandle::kStateVisibleBit;
}
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
for (uint32_t i = index_begin; i < index_end; i++) {
ClockHandle& h = array_[i];
uint64_t old_meta = h.meta.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
// Check if it's an entry visible to lookups
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) & check_state_mask) {
// Increment acquire counter
old_meta = h.meta.fetch_add(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_acquire);
// Double-check
if ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift) & check_state_mask) {
func(h);
}
// Pretend we never took the reference
h.meta.fetch_sub(ClockHandle::kAcquireIncrement,
std::memory_order_release);
// No net change, so don't need to check for overflow
}
}
}
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 ClockHandleTable::EraseUnRefEntries() {
for (uint32_t i = 0; i <= this->length_bits_mask_; i++) {
ClockHandle& h = array_[i];
uint64_t old_meta = h.meta.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
uint64_t refcount = ((old_meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) -
(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift)) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
if (old_meta & (uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift) &&
refcount == 0 &&
h.meta.compare_exchange_strong(old_meta,
uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateConstruction}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift,
std::memory_order_acquire)) {
// Took ownership
uint32_t hash = h.hash;
h.FreeData();
usage_.fetch_sub(h.total_charge, std::memory_order_relaxed);
#ifndef NDEBUG
// Mark slot as empty, with assertion
old_meta = h.meta.exchange(0, std::memory_order_release);
assert(old_meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateConstruction);
#else
// Mark slot as empty
h.meta.store(0, std::memory_order_release);
#endif
occupancy_.fetch_sub(1U, std::memory_order_release);
Rollback(hash, &h);
}
}
}
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
namespace {
inline uint32_t Remix1(uint32_t hash) {
return Lower32of64((uint64_t{hash} * 0xbc9f1d35) >> 29);
}
inline uint32_t Remix2(uint32_t hash) {
return Lower32of64((uint64_t{hash} * 0x7a2bb9d5) >> 29);
}
} // namespace
ClockHandle* ClockHandleTable::FindSlot(
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
uint32_t hash, std::function<bool(ClockHandle*)> match_fn,
std::function<bool(ClockHandle*)> abort_fn,
std::function<void(ClockHandle*)> update_fn, uint32_t& probe) {
// We use double-hashing probing. Every probe in the sequence is a
// pseudorandom integer, computed as a linear function of two random hashes,
// which we call base and increment. Specifically, the i-th probe is base + i
// * increment modulo the table size.
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
uint32_t base = ModTableSize(Remix1(hash));
// We use an odd increment, which is relatively prime with the power-of-two
// table size. This implies that we cycle back to the first probe only
// after probing every slot exactly once.
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
// TODO: we could also reconsider linear probing, though locality benefits
// are limited because each slot is a full cache line
uint32_t increment = Remix2(hash) | 1U;
uint32_t current = ModTableSize(base + probe * increment);
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
while (probe <= length_bits_mask_) {
ClockHandle* h = &array_[current];
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 (match_fn(h)) {
probe++;
return h;
}
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 (abort_fn(h)) {
return nullptr;
}
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
update_fn(h);
current = ModTableSize(current + increment);
}
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
// We looped back.
return nullptr;
}
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 ClockHandleTable::Rollback(uint32_t hash, const ClockHandle* h) {
uint32_t current = ModTableSize(Remix1(hash));
uint32_t increment = Remix2(hash) | 1U;
for (uint32_t i = 0; &array_[current] != h; i++) {
array_[current].displacements.fetch_sub(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
current = ModTableSize(current + increment);
}
}
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 ClockHandleTable::Evict(size_t requested_charge, size_t* freed_charge,
uint32_t* freed_count) {
// precondition
assert(requested_charge > 0);
// TODO: make a tuning parameter?
constexpr uint32_t step_size = 4;
// First (concurrent) increment clock pointer
uint64_t old_clock_pointer =
clock_pointer_.fetch_add(step_size, std::memory_order_relaxed);
// Cap the eviction effort at this thread (along with those operating in
// parallel) circling through the whole structure kMaxCountdown times.
// In other words, this eviction run must find something/anything that is
// unreferenced at start of and during the eviction run that isn't reclaimed
// by a concurrent eviction run.
uint64_t max_clock_pointer =
old_clock_pointer + (ClockHandle::kMaxCountdown << length_bits_);
for (;;) {
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < step_size; i++) {
ClockHandle& h = array_[ModTableSize(Lower32of64(old_clock_pointer + i))];
uint64_t meta = h.meta.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
uint64_t acquire_count = (meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
uint64_t release_count = (meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
if (acquire_count != release_count) {
// Only clock update entries with no outstanding refs
continue;
}
if (!(meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift &
ClockHandle::kStateShareableBit)) {
// Only clock update Shareable entries
continue;
}
// ModTableSize(old_clock_pointer + i));
if (meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift == ClockHandle::kStateVisible &&
acquire_count > 0) {
// Decrement clock
uint64_t new_count = std::min(acquire_count - 1,
uint64_t{ClockHandle::kMaxCountdown} - 1);
// Compare-exchange in the decremented clock info, but
// not aggressively
uint64_t new_meta =
(uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateVisible} << ClockHandle::kStateShift) |
(new_count << ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift) |
(new_count << ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift);
h.meta.compare_exchange_strong(meta, new_meta,
std::memory_order_relaxed);
continue;
}
// Otherwise, remove entry (either unreferenced invisible or
// unreferenced and expired visible). Compare-exchange failing probably
// indicates the entry was used, so skip it in that case.
if (h.meta.compare_exchange_strong(
meta,
uint64_t{ClockHandle::kStateConstruction}
<< ClockHandle::kStateShift,
std::memory_order_acquire)) {
// Took ownership
uint32_t hash = h.hash;
// TODO? Delay freeing?
h.FreeData();
*freed_charge += h.total_charge;
#ifndef NDEBUG
// Mark slot as empty, with assertion
meta = h.meta.exchange(0, std::memory_order_release);
assert(meta >> ClockHandle::kStateShift ==
ClockHandle::kStateConstruction);
#else
// Mark slot as empty
h.meta.store(0, std::memory_order_release);
#endif
*freed_count += 1;
Rollback(hash, &h);
}
}
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
// Loop exit condition
if (*freed_charge >= requested_charge) {
return;
}
if (old_clock_pointer >= max_clock_pointer) {
return;
}
// Advance clock pointer (concurrently)
old_clock_pointer =
clock_pointer_.fetch_add(step_size, std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
}
ClockCacheShard::ClockCacheShard(
size_t capacity, size_t estimated_value_size, bool strict_capacity_limit,
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
: CacheShard(metadata_charge_policy),
table_(
CalcHashBits(capacity, estimated_value_size, metadata_charge_policy),
/*initial_charge_metadata*/ metadata_charge_policy ==
kFullChargeCacheMetadata),
capacity_(capacity),
strict_capacity_limit_(strict_capacity_limit) {
// Initial charge metadata should not exceed capacity
assert(table_.GetUsage() <= capacity_ || capacity_ < sizeof(ClockHandle));
}
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 ClockCacheShard::EraseUnRefEntries() { table_.EraseUnRefEntries(); }
New Cache API for gathering statistics (#8225) Summary: Adds a new Cache::ApplyToAllEntries API that we expect to use (in follow-up PRs) for efficiently gathering block cache statistics. Notable features vs. old ApplyToAllCacheEntries: * Includes key and deleter (in addition to value and charge). We could have passed in a Handle but then more virtual function calls would be needed to get the "fields" of each entry. We expect to use the 'deleter' to identify the origin of entries, perhaps even more. * Heavily tuned to minimize latency impact on operating cache. It does this by iterating over small sections of each cache shard while cycling through the shards. * Supports tuning roughly how many entries to operate on for each lock acquire and release, to control the impact on the latency of other operations without excessive lock acquire & release. The right balance can depend on the cost of the callback. Good default seems to be around 256. * There should be no need to disable thread safety. (I would expect uncontended locks to be sufficiently fast.) I have enhanced cache_bench to validate this approach: * Reports a histogram of ns per operation, so we can look at the ditribution of times, not just throughput (average). * Can add a thread for simulated "gather stats" which calls ApplyToAllEntries at a specified interval. We also generate a histogram of time to run ApplyToAllEntries. To make the iteration over some entries of each shard work as cleanly as possible, even with resize between next set of entries, I have re-arranged which hash bits are used for sharding and which for indexing within a shard. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8225 Test Plan: A couple of unit tests are added, but primary validation is manual, as the primary risk is to performance. The primary validation is using cache_bench to ensure that neither the minor hashing changes nor the simulated stats gathering significantly impact QPS or latency distribution. Note that adding op latency histogram seriously impacts the benchmark QPS, so for a fair baseline, we need the cache_bench changes (except remove simulated stat gathering to make it compile). In short, we don't see any reproducible difference in ops/sec or op latency unless we are gathering stats nearly continuously. Test uses 10GB block cache with 8KB values to be somewhat realistic in the number of items to iterate over. Baseline typical output: ``` Complete in 92.017 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869401 Thread ops/sec = 54662 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11223.9494 StdDev: 29.61 Min: 0 Median: 7759.3973 Max: 9620500 Percentiles: P50: 7759.40 P75: 14190.73 P99: 46922.75 P99.9: 77509.84 P99.99: 217030.58 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 68 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 89 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 33630240 42.038% 42.038% ######## ( 6600, 9900 ] 18129842 22.662% 64.700% ##### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7877533 9.847% 74.547% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15193238 18.992% 93.539% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3037061 3.796% 97.335% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1626316 2.033% 99.368% ( 50000, 75000 ] 421532 0.527% 99.895% ( 75000, 110000 ] 56910 0.071% 99.966% ( 110000, 170000 ] 16134 0.020% 99.986% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5166 0.006% 99.993% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3017 0.004% 99.996% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1337 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 805 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 319 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 231 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 100 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 39 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 16 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=false. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 92.030 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869285 Thread ops/sec = 54458 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11298.1027 StdDev: 42.18 Min: 0 Median: 7722.0822 Max: 6398720 Percentiles: P50: 7722.08 P75: 14294.68 P99: 47522.95 P99.9: 85292.16 P99.99: 228077.78 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 109 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 793 0.001% 0.001% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34054563 42.568% 42.569% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 17482646 21.853% 64.423% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7908180 9.885% 74.308% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15032072 18.790% 93.098% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3237834 4.047% 97.145% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1736882 2.171% 99.316% ( 50000, 75000 ] 446851 0.559% 99.875% ( 75000, 110000 ] 68251 0.085% 99.960% ( 110000, 170000 ] 18592 0.023% 99.983% ( 170000, 250000 ] 7200 0.009% 99.992% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3334 0.004% 99.997% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1393 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 700 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 293 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 196 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 69 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 32 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 10 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=true, 1 second delay between scans. Scans take about 1 second here so it's spending about 50% time scanning. Still the effect on ops/sec and latency seems to be in the noise. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 91.890 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 870608 Thread ops/sec = 54551 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11311.2629 StdDev: 45.28 Min: 0 Median: 7686.5458 Max: 10018340 Percentiles: P50: 7686.55 P75: 14481.95 P99: 47232.60 P99.9: 79230.18 P99.99: 232998.86 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 71 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 291 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34492060 43.115% 43.116% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 16727328 20.909% 64.025% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7845828 9.807% 73.832% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15510654 19.388% 93.220% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3216533 4.021% 97.241% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1680859 2.101% 99.342% ( 50000, 75000 ] 439059 0.549% 99.891% ( 75000, 110000 ] 60540 0.076% 99.967% ( 110000, 170000 ] 14649 0.018% 99.985% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5242 0.007% 99.991% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3260 0.004% 99.995% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1599 0.002% 99.997% ( 570000, 860000 ] 1043 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 471 0.001% 99.999% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 275 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 143 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 60 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 27 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ( 9800000, 14000000 ] 1 0.000% 100.000% Gather stats latency (us): Count: 46 Average: 980387.5870 StdDev: 60911.18 Min: 879155 Median: 1033777.7778 Max: 1261431 Percentiles: P50: 1033777.78 P75: 1120666.67 P99: 1261431.00 P99.9: 1261431.00 P99.99: 1261431.00 ------------------------------------------------------ ( 860000, 1200000 ] 45 97.826% 97.826% #################### ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 1 2.174% 100.000% Most recent cache entry stats: Number of entries: 1295133 Total charge: 9.88 GB Average key size: 23.4982 Average charge: 8.00 KB Unique deleters: 3 ``` Reviewed By: mrambacher Differential Revision: D28295742 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: bbc4a552f91ba0fe10e5cc025c42cef5a81f2b95
3 years ago
void ClockCacheShard::ApplyToSomeEntries(
const std::function<void(const Slice& key, void* value, size_t charge,
DeleterFn deleter)>& callback,
uint32_t average_entries_per_lock, uint32_t* state) {
// The state is essentially going to be the starting hash, which works
// nicely even if we resize between calls because we use upper-most
// hash bits for table indexes.
uint32_t length_bits = table_.GetLengthBits();
uint32_t length = table_.GetTableSize();
New Cache API for gathering statistics (#8225) Summary: Adds a new Cache::ApplyToAllEntries API that we expect to use (in follow-up PRs) for efficiently gathering block cache statistics. Notable features vs. old ApplyToAllCacheEntries: * Includes key and deleter (in addition to value and charge). We could have passed in a Handle but then more virtual function calls would be needed to get the "fields" of each entry. We expect to use the 'deleter' to identify the origin of entries, perhaps even more. * Heavily tuned to minimize latency impact on operating cache. It does this by iterating over small sections of each cache shard while cycling through the shards. * Supports tuning roughly how many entries to operate on for each lock acquire and release, to control the impact on the latency of other operations without excessive lock acquire & release. The right balance can depend on the cost of the callback. Good default seems to be around 256. * There should be no need to disable thread safety. (I would expect uncontended locks to be sufficiently fast.) I have enhanced cache_bench to validate this approach: * Reports a histogram of ns per operation, so we can look at the ditribution of times, not just throughput (average). * Can add a thread for simulated "gather stats" which calls ApplyToAllEntries at a specified interval. We also generate a histogram of time to run ApplyToAllEntries. To make the iteration over some entries of each shard work as cleanly as possible, even with resize between next set of entries, I have re-arranged which hash bits are used for sharding and which for indexing within a shard. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8225 Test Plan: A couple of unit tests are added, but primary validation is manual, as the primary risk is to performance. The primary validation is using cache_bench to ensure that neither the minor hashing changes nor the simulated stats gathering significantly impact QPS or latency distribution. Note that adding op latency histogram seriously impacts the benchmark QPS, so for a fair baseline, we need the cache_bench changes (except remove simulated stat gathering to make it compile). In short, we don't see any reproducible difference in ops/sec or op latency unless we are gathering stats nearly continuously. Test uses 10GB block cache with 8KB values to be somewhat realistic in the number of items to iterate over. Baseline typical output: ``` Complete in 92.017 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869401 Thread ops/sec = 54662 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11223.9494 StdDev: 29.61 Min: 0 Median: 7759.3973 Max: 9620500 Percentiles: P50: 7759.40 P75: 14190.73 P99: 46922.75 P99.9: 77509.84 P99.99: 217030.58 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 68 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 89 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 33630240 42.038% 42.038% ######## ( 6600, 9900 ] 18129842 22.662% 64.700% ##### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7877533 9.847% 74.547% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15193238 18.992% 93.539% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3037061 3.796% 97.335% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1626316 2.033% 99.368% ( 50000, 75000 ] 421532 0.527% 99.895% ( 75000, 110000 ] 56910 0.071% 99.966% ( 110000, 170000 ] 16134 0.020% 99.986% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5166 0.006% 99.993% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3017 0.004% 99.996% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1337 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 805 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 319 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 231 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 100 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 39 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 16 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=false. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 92.030 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869285 Thread ops/sec = 54458 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11298.1027 StdDev: 42.18 Min: 0 Median: 7722.0822 Max: 6398720 Percentiles: P50: 7722.08 P75: 14294.68 P99: 47522.95 P99.9: 85292.16 P99.99: 228077.78 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 109 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 793 0.001% 0.001% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34054563 42.568% 42.569% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 17482646 21.853% 64.423% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7908180 9.885% 74.308% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15032072 18.790% 93.098% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3237834 4.047% 97.145% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1736882 2.171% 99.316% ( 50000, 75000 ] 446851 0.559% 99.875% ( 75000, 110000 ] 68251 0.085% 99.960% ( 110000, 170000 ] 18592 0.023% 99.983% ( 170000, 250000 ] 7200 0.009% 99.992% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3334 0.004% 99.997% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1393 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 700 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 293 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 196 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 69 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 32 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 10 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=true, 1 second delay between scans. Scans take about 1 second here so it's spending about 50% time scanning. Still the effect on ops/sec and latency seems to be in the noise. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 91.890 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 870608 Thread ops/sec = 54551 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11311.2629 StdDev: 45.28 Min: 0 Median: 7686.5458 Max: 10018340 Percentiles: P50: 7686.55 P75: 14481.95 P99: 47232.60 P99.9: 79230.18 P99.99: 232998.86 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 71 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 291 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34492060 43.115% 43.116% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 16727328 20.909% 64.025% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7845828 9.807% 73.832% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15510654 19.388% 93.220% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3216533 4.021% 97.241% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1680859 2.101% 99.342% ( 50000, 75000 ] 439059 0.549% 99.891% ( 75000, 110000 ] 60540 0.076% 99.967% ( 110000, 170000 ] 14649 0.018% 99.985% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5242 0.007% 99.991% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3260 0.004% 99.995% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1599 0.002% 99.997% ( 570000, 860000 ] 1043 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 471 0.001% 99.999% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 275 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 143 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 60 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 27 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ( 9800000, 14000000 ] 1 0.000% 100.000% Gather stats latency (us): Count: 46 Average: 980387.5870 StdDev: 60911.18 Min: 879155 Median: 1033777.7778 Max: 1261431 Percentiles: P50: 1033777.78 P75: 1120666.67 P99: 1261431.00 P99.9: 1261431.00 P99.99: 1261431.00 ------------------------------------------------------ ( 860000, 1200000 ] 45 97.826% 97.826% #################### ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 1 2.174% 100.000% Most recent cache entry stats: Number of entries: 1295133 Total charge: 9.88 GB Average key size: 23.4982 Average charge: 8.00 KB Unique deleters: 3 ``` Reviewed By: mrambacher Differential Revision: D28295742 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: bbc4a552f91ba0fe10e5cc025c42cef5a81f2b95
3 years ago
assert(average_entries_per_lock > 0);
// Assuming we are called with same average_entries_per_lock repeatedly,
// this simplifies some logic (index_end will not overflow).
assert(average_entries_per_lock < length || *state == 0);
uint32_t index_begin = *state >> (32 - length_bits);
uint32_t index_end = index_begin + average_entries_per_lock;
if (index_end >= length) {
// Going to end.
index_end = length;
New Cache API for gathering statistics (#8225) Summary: Adds a new Cache::ApplyToAllEntries API that we expect to use (in follow-up PRs) for efficiently gathering block cache statistics. Notable features vs. old ApplyToAllCacheEntries: * Includes key and deleter (in addition to value and charge). We could have passed in a Handle but then more virtual function calls would be needed to get the "fields" of each entry. We expect to use the 'deleter' to identify the origin of entries, perhaps even more. * Heavily tuned to minimize latency impact on operating cache. It does this by iterating over small sections of each cache shard while cycling through the shards. * Supports tuning roughly how many entries to operate on for each lock acquire and release, to control the impact on the latency of other operations without excessive lock acquire & release. The right balance can depend on the cost of the callback. Good default seems to be around 256. * There should be no need to disable thread safety. (I would expect uncontended locks to be sufficiently fast.) I have enhanced cache_bench to validate this approach: * Reports a histogram of ns per operation, so we can look at the ditribution of times, not just throughput (average). * Can add a thread for simulated "gather stats" which calls ApplyToAllEntries at a specified interval. We also generate a histogram of time to run ApplyToAllEntries. To make the iteration over some entries of each shard work as cleanly as possible, even with resize between next set of entries, I have re-arranged which hash bits are used for sharding and which for indexing within a shard. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8225 Test Plan: A couple of unit tests are added, but primary validation is manual, as the primary risk is to performance. The primary validation is using cache_bench to ensure that neither the minor hashing changes nor the simulated stats gathering significantly impact QPS or latency distribution. Note that adding op latency histogram seriously impacts the benchmark QPS, so for a fair baseline, we need the cache_bench changes (except remove simulated stat gathering to make it compile). In short, we don't see any reproducible difference in ops/sec or op latency unless we are gathering stats nearly continuously. Test uses 10GB block cache with 8KB values to be somewhat realistic in the number of items to iterate over. Baseline typical output: ``` Complete in 92.017 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869401 Thread ops/sec = 54662 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11223.9494 StdDev: 29.61 Min: 0 Median: 7759.3973 Max: 9620500 Percentiles: P50: 7759.40 P75: 14190.73 P99: 46922.75 P99.9: 77509.84 P99.99: 217030.58 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 68 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 89 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 33630240 42.038% 42.038% ######## ( 6600, 9900 ] 18129842 22.662% 64.700% ##### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7877533 9.847% 74.547% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15193238 18.992% 93.539% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3037061 3.796% 97.335% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1626316 2.033% 99.368% ( 50000, 75000 ] 421532 0.527% 99.895% ( 75000, 110000 ] 56910 0.071% 99.966% ( 110000, 170000 ] 16134 0.020% 99.986% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5166 0.006% 99.993% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3017 0.004% 99.996% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1337 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 805 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 319 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 231 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 100 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 39 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 16 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=false. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 92.030 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869285 Thread ops/sec = 54458 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11298.1027 StdDev: 42.18 Min: 0 Median: 7722.0822 Max: 6398720 Percentiles: P50: 7722.08 P75: 14294.68 P99: 47522.95 P99.9: 85292.16 P99.99: 228077.78 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 109 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 793 0.001% 0.001% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34054563 42.568% 42.569% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 17482646 21.853% 64.423% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7908180 9.885% 74.308% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15032072 18.790% 93.098% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3237834 4.047% 97.145% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1736882 2.171% 99.316% ( 50000, 75000 ] 446851 0.559% 99.875% ( 75000, 110000 ] 68251 0.085% 99.960% ( 110000, 170000 ] 18592 0.023% 99.983% ( 170000, 250000 ] 7200 0.009% 99.992% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3334 0.004% 99.997% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1393 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 700 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 293 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 196 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 69 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 32 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 10 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=true, 1 second delay between scans. Scans take about 1 second here so it's spending about 50% time scanning. Still the effect on ops/sec and latency seems to be in the noise. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 91.890 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 870608 Thread ops/sec = 54551 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11311.2629 StdDev: 45.28 Min: 0 Median: 7686.5458 Max: 10018340 Percentiles: P50: 7686.55 P75: 14481.95 P99: 47232.60 P99.9: 79230.18 P99.99: 232998.86 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 71 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 291 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34492060 43.115% 43.116% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 16727328 20.909% 64.025% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7845828 9.807% 73.832% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15510654 19.388% 93.220% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3216533 4.021% 97.241% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1680859 2.101% 99.342% ( 50000, 75000 ] 439059 0.549% 99.891% ( 75000, 110000 ] 60540 0.076% 99.967% ( 110000, 170000 ] 14649 0.018% 99.985% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5242 0.007% 99.991% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3260 0.004% 99.995% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1599 0.002% 99.997% ( 570000, 860000 ] 1043 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 471 0.001% 99.999% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 275 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 143 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 60 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 27 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ( 9800000, 14000000 ] 1 0.000% 100.000% Gather stats latency (us): Count: 46 Average: 980387.5870 StdDev: 60911.18 Min: 879155 Median: 1033777.7778 Max: 1261431 Percentiles: P50: 1033777.78 P75: 1120666.67 P99: 1261431.00 P99.9: 1261431.00 P99.99: 1261431.00 ------------------------------------------------------ ( 860000, 1200000 ] 45 97.826% 97.826% #################### ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 1 2.174% 100.000% Most recent cache entry stats: Number of entries: 1295133 Total charge: 9.88 GB Average key size: 23.4982 Average charge: 8.00 KB Unique deleters: 3 ``` Reviewed By: mrambacher Differential Revision: D28295742 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: bbc4a552f91ba0fe10e5cc025c42cef5a81f2b95
3 years ago
*state = UINT32_MAX;
} else {
*state = index_end << (32 - length_bits);
}
New Cache API for gathering statistics (#8225) Summary: Adds a new Cache::ApplyToAllEntries API that we expect to use (in follow-up PRs) for efficiently gathering block cache statistics. Notable features vs. old ApplyToAllCacheEntries: * Includes key and deleter (in addition to value and charge). We could have passed in a Handle but then more virtual function calls would be needed to get the "fields" of each entry. We expect to use the 'deleter' to identify the origin of entries, perhaps even more. * Heavily tuned to minimize latency impact on operating cache. It does this by iterating over small sections of each cache shard while cycling through the shards. * Supports tuning roughly how many entries to operate on for each lock acquire and release, to control the impact on the latency of other operations without excessive lock acquire & release. The right balance can depend on the cost of the callback. Good default seems to be around 256. * There should be no need to disable thread safety. (I would expect uncontended locks to be sufficiently fast.) I have enhanced cache_bench to validate this approach: * Reports a histogram of ns per operation, so we can look at the ditribution of times, not just throughput (average). * Can add a thread for simulated "gather stats" which calls ApplyToAllEntries at a specified interval. We also generate a histogram of time to run ApplyToAllEntries. To make the iteration over some entries of each shard work as cleanly as possible, even with resize between next set of entries, I have re-arranged which hash bits are used for sharding and which for indexing within a shard. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8225 Test Plan: A couple of unit tests are added, but primary validation is manual, as the primary risk is to performance. The primary validation is using cache_bench to ensure that neither the minor hashing changes nor the simulated stats gathering significantly impact QPS or latency distribution. Note that adding op latency histogram seriously impacts the benchmark QPS, so for a fair baseline, we need the cache_bench changes (except remove simulated stat gathering to make it compile). In short, we don't see any reproducible difference in ops/sec or op latency unless we are gathering stats nearly continuously. Test uses 10GB block cache with 8KB values to be somewhat realistic in the number of items to iterate over. Baseline typical output: ``` Complete in 92.017 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869401 Thread ops/sec = 54662 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11223.9494 StdDev: 29.61 Min: 0 Median: 7759.3973 Max: 9620500 Percentiles: P50: 7759.40 P75: 14190.73 P99: 46922.75 P99.9: 77509.84 P99.99: 217030.58 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 68 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 89 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 33630240 42.038% 42.038% ######## ( 6600, 9900 ] 18129842 22.662% 64.700% ##### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7877533 9.847% 74.547% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15193238 18.992% 93.539% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3037061 3.796% 97.335% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1626316 2.033% 99.368% ( 50000, 75000 ] 421532 0.527% 99.895% ( 75000, 110000 ] 56910 0.071% 99.966% ( 110000, 170000 ] 16134 0.020% 99.986% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5166 0.006% 99.993% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3017 0.004% 99.996% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1337 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 805 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 319 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 231 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 100 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 39 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 16 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=false. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 92.030 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 869285 Thread ops/sec = 54458 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11298.1027 StdDev: 42.18 Min: 0 Median: 7722.0822 Max: 6398720 Percentiles: P50: 7722.08 P75: 14294.68 P99: 47522.95 P99.9: 85292.16 P99.99: 228077.78 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 109 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 793 0.001% 0.001% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34054563 42.568% 42.569% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 17482646 21.853% 64.423% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7908180 9.885% 74.308% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15032072 18.790% 93.098% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3237834 4.047% 97.145% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1736882 2.171% 99.316% ( 50000, 75000 ] 446851 0.559% 99.875% ( 75000, 110000 ] 68251 0.085% 99.960% ( 110000, 170000 ] 18592 0.023% 99.983% ( 170000, 250000 ] 7200 0.009% 99.992% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3334 0.004% 99.997% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1393 0.002% 99.998% ( 570000, 860000 ] 700 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 293 0.000% 100.000% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 196 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 69 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 32 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 10 0.000% 100.000% ``` New, gather_stats=true, 1 second delay between scans. Scans take about 1 second here so it's spending about 50% time scanning. Still the effect on ops/sec and latency seems to be in the noise. Median thread ops/sec of 5 runs: ``` Complete in 91.890 s; Rough parallel ops/sec = 870608 Thread ops/sec = 54551 Operation latency (ns): Count: 80000000 Average: 11311.2629 StdDev: 45.28 Min: 0 Median: 7686.5458 Max: 10018340 Percentiles: P50: 7686.55 P75: 14481.95 P99: 47232.60 P99.9: 79230.18 P99.99: 232998.86 ------------------------------------------------------ [ 0, 1 ] 71 0.000% 0.000% ( 2900, 4400 ] 291 0.000% 0.000% ( 4400, 6600 ] 34492060 43.115% 43.116% ######### ( 6600, 9900 ] 16727328 20.909% 64.025% #### ( 9900, 14000 ] 7845828 9.807% 73.832% ## ( 14000, 22000 ] 15510654 19.388% 93.220% #### ( 22000, 33000 ] 3216533 4.021% 97.241% # ( 33000, 50000 ] 1680859 2.101% 99.342% ( 50000, 75000 ] 439059 0.549% 99.891% ( 75000, 110000 ] 60540 0.076% 99.967% ( 110000, 170000 ] 14649 0.018% 99.985% ( 170000, 250000 ] 5242 0.007% 99.991% ( 250000, 380000 ] 3260 0.004% 99.995% ( 380000, 570000 ] 1599 0.002% 99.997% ( 570000, 860000 ] 1043 0.001% 99.999% ( 860000, 1200000 ] 471 0.001% 99.999% ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 275 0.000% 100.000% ( 1900000, 2900000 ] 143 0.000% 100.000% ( 2900000, 4300000 ] 60 0.000% 100.000% ( 4300000, 6500000 ] 27 0.000% 100.000% ( 6500000, 9800000 ] 7 0.000% 100.000% ( 9800000, 14000000 ] 1 0.000% 100.000% Gather stats latency (us): Count: 46 Average: 980387.5870 StdDev: 60911.18 Min: 879155 Median: 1033777.7778 Max: 1261431 Percentiles: P50: 1033777.78 P75: 1120666.67 P99: 1261431.00 P99.9: 1261431.00 P99.99: 1261431.00 ------------------------------------------------------ ( 860000, 1200000 ] 45 97.826% 97.826% #################### ( 1200000, 1900000 ] 1 2.174% 100.000% Most recent cache entry stats: Number of entries: 1295133 Total charge: 9.88 GB Average key size: 23.4982 Average charge: 8.00 KB Unique deleters: 3 ``` Reviewed By: mrambacher Differential Revision: D28295742 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: bbc4a552f91ba0fe10e5cc025c42cef5a81f2b95
3 years ago
table_.ConstApplyToEntriesRange(
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
[callback](const ClockHandle& h) {
callback(h.KeySlice(), h.value, h.total_charge, h.deleter);
},
index_begin, index_end, false);
}
int ClockCacheShard::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
double average_slot_charge = estimated_value_size * kLoadFactor;
if (metadata_charge_policy == kFullChargeCacheMetadata) {
average_slot_charge += sizeof(ClockHandle);
}
assert(average_slot_charge > 0.0);
uint64_t num_slots =
static_cast<uint64_t>(capacity / average_slot_charge + 0.999999);
int hash_bits = std::min(FloorLog2((num_slots << 1) - 1), 32);
if (metadata_charge_policy == kFullChargeCacheMetadata) {
// For very small estimated value sizes, it's possible to overshoot
while (hash_bits > 0 &&
uint64_t{sizeof(ClockHandle)} << hash_bits > capacity) {
hash_bits--;
}
}
return hash_bits;
}
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
void ClockCacheShard::SetCapacity(size_t capacity) {
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
capacity_.store(capacity, std::memory_order_relaxed);
// next Insert will take care of any necessary evictions
}
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
void ClockCacheShard::SetStrictCapacityLimit(bool strict_capacity_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
strict_capacity_limit_.store(strict_capacity_limit,
std::memory_order_relaxed);
// next Insert will take care of any necessary evictions
}
Status ClockCacheShard::Insert(const Slice& key, uint32_t hash, void* value,
size_t charge, Cache::DeleterFn deleter,
Cache::Handle** handle,
Cache::Priority 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
if (UNLIKELY(key.size() != kCacheKeySize)) {
return Status::NotSupported("ClockCache only supports key size " +
std::to_string(kCacheKeySize) + "B");
}
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
ClockHandleMoreData proto;
proto.key = *reinterpret_cast<const CacheKeyBytes*>(key.data());
proto.hash = hash;
proto.value = value;
proto.deleter = deleter;
proto.total_charge = charge;
Status s =
table_.Insert(proto, reinterpret_cast<ClockHandle**>(handle), priority,
capacity_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed),
strict_capacity_limit_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed));
return s;
}
Cache::Handle* ClockCacheShard::Lookup(const Slice& key, uint32_t hash) {
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 (UNLIKELY(key.size() != kCacheKeySize)) {
return nullptr;
}
auto key_bytes = reinterpret_cast<const CacheKeyBytes*>(key.data());
return reinterpret_cast<Cache::Handle*>(table_.Lookup(*key_bytes, hash));
}
bool ClockCacheShard::Ref(Cache::Handle* h) {
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 (h == nullptr) {
return false;
}
table_.Ref(*reinterpret_cast<ClockHandle*>(h));
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
bool ClockCacheShard::Release(Cache::Handle* handle, bool useful,
bool erase_if_last_ref) {
if (handle == nullptr) {
return false;
}
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 table_.Release(reinterpret_cast<ClockHandle*>(handle), useful,
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
void ClockCacheShard::TEST_RefN(Cache::Handle* h, size_t n) {
table_.TEST_RefN(*reinterpret_cast<ClockHandle*>(h), 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
void ClockCacheShard::TEST_ReleaseN(Cache::Handle* h, size_t n) {
table_.TEST_ReleaseN(reinterpret_cast<ClockHandle*>(h), 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
bool ClockCacheShard::Release(Cache::Handle* handle, bool erase_if_last_ref) {
return Release(handle, /*useful=*/true, erase_if_last_ref);
}
void ClockCacheShard::Erase(const Slice& key, uint32_t hash) {
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 (UNLIKELY(key.size() != kCacheKeySize)) {
return;
}
auto key_bytes = reinterpret_cast<const CacheKeyBytes*>(key.data());
table_.Erase(*key_bytes, hash);
}
size_t ClockCacheShard::GetUsage() const { return table_.GetUsage(); }
size_t ClockCacheShard::GetPinnedUsage() const {
// Computes the pinned usage by scanning the whole hash table. This
// is slow, but avoids keeping an exact counter on the clock usage,
// i.e., the number of not externally referenced elements.
// Why avoid this counter? Because Lookup removes elements from the clock
// list, so it would need to update the pinned usage every time,
// which creates additional synchronization costs.
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 table_pinned_usage = 0;
const bool charge_metadata =
metadata_charge_policy_ == kFullChargeCacheMetadata;
table_.ConstApplyToEntriesRange(
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
[&table_pinned_usage, charge_metadata](const ClockHandle& h) {
uint64_t meta = h.meta.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
uint64_t refcount = ((meta >> ClockHandle::kAcquireCounterShift) -
(meta >> ClockHandle::kReleaseCounterShift)) &
ClockHandle::kCounterMask;
// Holding one ref for ConstApplyToEntriesRange
assert(refcount > 0);
if (refcount > 1) {
table_pinned_usage += h.total_charge;
if (charge_metadata) {
table_pinned_usage += sizeof(ClockHandle);
}
}
},
0, table_.GetTableSize(), 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
return table_pinned_usage + table_.GetDetachedUsage();
}
size_t ClockCacheShard::GetOccupancyCount() const {
return table_.GetOccupancy();
}
size_t ClockCacheShard::GetTableAddressCount() const {
return table_.GetTableSize();
}
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::HyperClockCache(
size_t capacity, size_t estimated_value_size, int num_shard_bits,
bool strict_capacity_limit,
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy)
: ShardedCache(capacity, num_shard_bits, strict_capacity_limit),
num_shards_(1 << num_shard_bits) {
assert(estimated_value_size > 0 ||
metadata_charge_policy != kDontChargeCacheMetadata);
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
// TODO: should not need to go through two levels of pointer indirection to
// get to table entries
shards_ = reinterpret_cast<ClockCacheShard*>(
port::cacheline_aligned_alloc(sizeof(ClockCacheShard) * num_shards_));
size_t per_shard = (capacity + (num_shards_ - 1)) / num_shards_;
for (int i = 0; i < num_shards_; i++) {
new (&shards_[i])
ClockCacheShard(per_shard, estimated_value_size, strict_capacity_limit,
metadata_charge_policy);
}
}
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::~HyperClockCache() {
if (shards_ != nullptr) {
assert(num_shards_ > 0);
for (int i = 0; i < num_shards_; i++) {
shards_[i].~ClockCacheShard();
}
port::cacheline_aligned_free(shards_);
}
}
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
CacheShard* HyperClockCache::GetShard(uint32_t shard) {
return reinterpret_cast<CacheShard*>(&shards_[shard]);
}
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 CacheShard* HyperClockCache::GetShard(uint32_t shard) const {
return reinterpret_cast<CacheShard*>(&shards_[shard]);
}
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
void* HyperClockCache::Value(Handle* handle) {
return reinterpret_cast<const ClockHandle*>(handle)->value;
}
Use deleters to label cache entries and collect stats (#8297) Summary: This change gathers and publishes statistics about the kinds of items in block cache. This is especially important for profiling relative usage of cache by index vs. filter vs. data blocks. It works by iterating over the cache during periodic stats dump (InternalStats, stats_dump_period_sec) or on demand when DB::Get(Map)Property(kBlockCacheEntryStats), except that for efficiency and sharing among column families, saved data from the last scan is used when the data is not considered too old. The new information can be seen in info LOG, for example: Block cache LRUCache@0x7fca62229330 capacity: 95.37 MB collections: 8 last_copies: 0 last_secs: 0.00178 secs_since: 0 Block cache entry stats(count,size,portion): DataBlock(7092,28.24 MB,29.6136%) FilterBlock(215,867.90 KB,0.888728%) FilterMetaBlock(2,5.31 KB,0.00544%) IndexBlock(217,180.11 KB,0.184432%) WriteBuffer(1,256.00 KB,0.262144%) Misc(1,0.00 KB,0%) And also through DB::GetProperty and GetMapProperty (here using ldb just for demonstration): $ ./ldb --db=/dev/shm/dbbench/ get_property rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.data-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.deprecated-filter-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.filter-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.filter-meta-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.index-block: 178992 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.misc: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.other-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.bytes.write-buffer: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.capacity: 8388608 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.data-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.deprecated-filter-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.filter-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.filter-meta-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.index-block: 215 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.misc: 1 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.other-block: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.count.write-buffer: 0 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.id: LRUCache@0x7f3636661290 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.data-block: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.deprecated-filter-block: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.filter-block: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.filter-meta-block: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.index-block: 2.133751 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.misc: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.other-block: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.percent.write-buffer: 0.000000 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.secs_for_last_collection: 0.000052 rocksdb.block-cache-entry-stats.secs_since_last_collection: 0 Solution detail - We need some way to flag what kind of blocks each entry belongs to, preferably without changing the Cache API. One of the complications is that Cache is a general interface that could have other users that don't adhere to whichever convention we decide on for keys and values. Or we would pay for an extra field in the Handle that would only be used for this purpose. This change uses a back-door approach, the deleter, to indicate the "role" of a Cache entry (in addition to the value type, implicitly). This has the added benefit of ensuring proper code origin whenever we recognize a particular role for a cache entry; if the entry came from some other part of the code, it will use an unrecognized deleter, which we simply attribute to the "Misc" role. An internal API makes for simple instantiation and automatic registration of Cache deleters for a given value type and "role". Another internal API, CacheEntryStatsCollector, solves the problem of caching the results of a scan and sharing them, to ensure scans are neither excessive nor redundant so as not to harm Cache performance. Because code is added to BlocklikeTraits, it is pulled out of block_based_table_reader.cc into its own file. This is a reformulation of https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/8276, without the type checking option (could still be added), and with actual stat gathering. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8297 Test Plan: manual testing with db_bench, and a couple of basic unit tests Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D28488721 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 472f524a9691b5afb107934be2d41d84f2b129fb
3 years ago
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
size_t HyperClockCache::GetCharge(Handle* handle) 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 reinterpret_cast<const ClockHandle*>(handle)->total_charge;
}
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
Cache::DeleterFn HyperClockCache::GetDeleter(Handle* handle) const {
auto h = reinterpret_cast<const ClockHandle*>(handle);
return h->deleter;
}
Initial support for secondary cache in LRUCache (#8271) Summary: Defined the abstract interface for a secondary cache in include/rocksdb/secondary_cache.h, and updated LRUCacheOptions to take a std::shared_ptr<SecondaryCache>. An item is initially inserted into the LRU (primary) cache. When it ages out and evicted from memory, its inserted into the secondary cache. On a LRU cache miss and successful lookup in the secondary cache, the item is promoted to the LRU cache. Only support synchronous lookup currently. The secondary cache would be used to implement a persistent (flash cache) or compressed cache. Tests: Results from cache_bench and db_bench don't show any regression due to these changes. cache_bench results before and after this change - Command ```./cache_bench -ops_per_thread=10000000 -threads=1``` Before ```Complete in 40.688 s; QPS = 245774``` ```Complete in 40.486 s; QPS = 246996``` ```Complete in 42.019 s; QPS = 237989``` After ```Complete in 40.672 s; QPS = 245869``` ```Complete in 44.622 s; QPS = 224107``` ```Complete in 42.445 s; QPS = 235599``` db_bench results before this change, and with this change + https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/8213 and https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/8191 - Commands ```./db_bench --benchmarks="fillseq,compact" -num=30000000 -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -use_direct_io_for_flush_and_compaction=true -db=/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db -partition_index_and_filters=true``` ```./db_bench -db=/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db -use_existing_db=true -benchmarks=readrandom -num=30000000 -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -use_direct_reads=true -cache_size=1073741824 -cache_numshardbits=6 -cache_index_and_filter_blocks=true -read_random_exp_range=17 -statistics -partition_index_and_filters=true -threads=16 -duration=300``` Before ``` DB path: [/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db] readrandom : 80.702 micros/op 198104 ops/sec; 54.4 MB/s (3708999 of 3708999 found) ``` ``` DB path: [/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db] readrandom : 87.124 micros/op 183625 ops/sec; 50.4 MB/s (3439999 of 3439999 found) ``` After ``` DB path: [/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db] readrandom : 77.653 micros/op 206025 ops/sec; 56.6 MB/s (3866999 of 3866999 found) ``` ``` DB path: [/home/anand76/nvm_cache/db] readrandom : 84.962 micros/op 188299 ops/sec; 51.7 MB/s (3535999 of 3535999 found) ``` Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8271 Reviewed By: zhichao-cao Differential Revision: D28357511 Pulled By: anand1976 fbshipit-source-id: d1cfa236f00e649a18c53328be10a8062a4b6da2
3 years ago
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
uint32_t HyperClockCache::GetHash(Handle* handle) const {
return reinterpret_cast<const ClockHandle*>(handle)->hash;
}
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
void HyperClockCache::DisownData() {
// Leak data only if that won't generate an ASAN/valgrind warning.
if (!kMustFreeHeapAllocations) {
shards_ = nullptr;
num_shards_ = 0;
}
}
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
} // namespace hyper_clock_cache
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
// DEPRECATED (see public API)
std::shared_ptr<Cache> NewClockCache(
size_t capacity, int num_shard_bits, bool strict_capacity_limit,
CacheMetadataChargePolicy metadata_charge_policy) {
return NewLRUCache(capacity, num_shard_bits, strict_capacity_limit,
/* high_pri_pool_ratio */ 0.5, nullptr,
kDefaultToAdaptiveMutex, metadata_charge_policy,
/* low_pri_pool_ratio */ 0.0);
}
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
std::shared_ptr<Cache> HyperClockCacheOptions::MakeSharedCache() const {
auto my_num_shard_bits = num_shard_bits;
if (my_num_shard_bits >= 20) {
return nullptr; // The cache cannot be sharded into too many fine pieces.
}
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
if (my_num_shard_bits < 0) {
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
// Use larger shard size to reduce risk of large entries clustering
// or skewing individual shards.
constexpr size_t min_shard_size = 32U * 1024U * 1024U;
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
my_num_shard_bits = GetDefaultCacheShardBits(capacity, min_shard_size);
}
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
return std::make_shared<hyper_clock_cache::HyperClockCache>(
capacity, estimated_entry_charge, my_num_shard_bits,
strict_capacity_limit, metadata_charge_policy);
}
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE