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/db_stress_tool/no_batched_ops_stress.cc

1997 lines
70 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.
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
#include "db_stress_tool/expected_state.h"
#ifdef GFLAGS
#include "db_stress_tool/db_stress_common.h"
#include "rocksdb/utilities/transaction_db.h"
Account memory of FileMetaData in global memory limit (#9924) Summary: **Context/Summary:** As revealed by heap profiling, allocation of `FileMetaData` for [newly created file added to a Version](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9924/files#diff-a6aa385940793f95a2c5b39cc670bd440c4547fa54fd44622f756382d5e47e43R774) can consume significant heap memory. This PR is to account that toward our global memory limit based on block cache capacity. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9924 Test Plan: - Previous `make check` verified there are only 2 places where the memory of the allocated `FileMetaData` can be released - New unit test `TEST_P(ChargeFileMetadataTestWithParam, Basic)` - db bench (CPU cost of `charge_file_metadata` in write and compact) - **write micros/op: -0.24%** : `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/testdb ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -charge_file_metadata=1 (remove this option for pre-PR) -disable_auto_compactions=1 -write_buffer_size=100000 -num=4000000 | egrep 'fillseq'` - **compact micros/op -0.87%** : `TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/testdb ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -charge_file_metadata=1 -disable_auto_compactions=1 -write_buffer_size=100000 -num=4000000 -numdistinct=1000 && ./db_bench -benchmarks=compact -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -use_existing_db=1 -charge_file_metadata=1 -disable_auto_compactions=1 | egrep 'compact'` table 1 - write #-run | (pre-PR) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-PR) micros/op | std micros/op | change (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 3.9711 | 0.264408 | 3.9914 | 0.254563 | 0.5111933721 20 | 3.83905 | 0.0664488 | 3.8251 | 0.0695456 | -0.3633711465 40 | 3.86625 | 0.136669 | 3.8867 | 0.143765 | 0.5289363078 80 | 3.87828 | 0.119007 | 3.86791 | 0.115674 | **-0.2673865734** 160 | 3.87677 | 0.162231 | 3.86739 | 0.16663 | **-0.2419539978** table 2 - compact #-run | (pre-PR) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-PR) micros/op | std micros/op | change (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 2,399,650.00 | 96,375.80 | 2,359,537.00 | 53,243.60 | -1.67 20 | 2,410,480.00 | 89,988.00 | 2,433,580.00 | 91,121.20 | 0.96 40 | 2.41E+06 | 121811 | 2.39E+06 | 131525 | **-0.96** 80 | 2.40E+06 | 134503 | 2.39E+06 | 108799 | **-0.78** - stress test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py blackbox --charge_file_metadata=1 --cache_size=1` killed as normal Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D36055583 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: b60eab94707103cb1322cf815f05810ef0232625
2 years ago
#include "utilities/fault_injection_fs.h"
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
class NonBatchedOpsStressTest : public StressTest {
public:
NonBatchedOpsStressTest() {}
virtual ~NonBatchedOpsStressTest() {}
void VerifyDb(ThreadState* thread) const override {
Add rate limiter priority to ReadOptions (#9424) Summary: Users can set the priority for file reads associated with their operation by setting `ReadOptions::rate_limiter_priority` to something other than `Env::IO_TOTAL`. Rate limiting `VerifyChecksum()` and `VerifyFileChecksums()` is the motivation for this PR, so it also includes benchmarks and minor bug fixes to get that working. `RandomAccessFileReader::Read()` already had support for rate limiting compaction reads. I changed that rate limiting to be non-specific to compaction, but rather performed according to the passed in `Env::IOPriority`. Now the compaction read rate limiting is supported by setting `rate_limiter_priority = Env::IO_LOW` on its `ReadOptions`. There is no default value for the new `Env::IOPriority` parameter to `RandomAccessFileReader::Read()`. That means this PR goes through all callers (in some cases multiple layers up the call stack) to find a `ReadOptions` to provide the priority. There are TODOs for cases I believe it would be good to let user control the priority some day (e.g., file footer reads), and no TODO in cases I believe it doesn't matter (e.g., trace file reads). The API doc only lists the missing cases where a file read associated with a provided `ReadOptions` cannot be rate limited. For cases like file ingestion checksum calculation, there is no API to provide `ReadOptions` or `Env::IOPriority`, so I didn't count that as missing. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9424 Test Plan: - new unit tests - new benchmarks on ~50MB database with 1MB/s read rate limit and 100ms refill interval; verified with strace reads are chunked (at 0.1MB per chunk) and spaced roughly 100ms apart. - setup command: `./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom,compact -db=/tmp/testdb -target_file_size_base=1048576 -disable_auto_compactions=true -file_checksum=true` - benchmarks command: `strace -ttfe pread64 ./db_bench -benchmarks=verifychecksum,verifyfilechecksums -use_existing_db=true -db=/tmp/testdb -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=1048576 -rate_limit_bg_reads=1 -rate_limit_user_ops=true -file_checksum=true` - crash test using IO_USER priority on non-validation reads with https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/9567 reverted: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py blackbox --max_key=1000000 --write_buffer_size=524288 --target_file_size_base=524288 --level_compaction_dynamic_level_bytes=true --duration=3600 --rate_limit_bg_reads=true --rate_limit_user_ops=true --rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=10485760 --interval=10` Reviewed By: hx235 Differential Revision: D33747386 Pulled By: ajkr fbshipit-source-id: a2d985e97912fba8c54763798e04f006ccc56e0c
3 years ago
// This `ReadOptions` is for validation purposes. Ignore
// `FLAGS_rate_limit_user_ops` to avoid slowing any validation.
ReadOptions options(FLAGS_verify_checksum, true);
std::string ts_str;
Slice ts;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
ts_str = GetNowNanos();
ts = ts_str;
options.timestamp = &ts;
}
auto shared = thread->shared;
const int64_t max_key = shared->GetMaxKey();
const int64_t keys_per_thread = max_key / shared->GetNumThreads();
int64_t start = keys_per_thread * thread->tid;
int64_t end = start + keys_per_thread;
uint64_t prefix_to_use =
(FLAGS_prefix_size < 0) ? 1 : static_cast<size_t>(FLAGS_prefix_size);
if (thread->tid == shared->GetNumThreads() - 1) {
end = max_key;
}
for (size_t cf = 0; cf < column_families_.size(); ++cf) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
enum class VerificationMethod {
kIterator,
kGet,
kGetEntity,
kMultiGet,
kMultiGetEntity,
kGetMergeOperands,
// Add any new items above kNumberOfMethods
kNumberOfMethods
};
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
constexpr int num_methods =
static_cast<int>(VerificationMethod::kNumberOfMethods);
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
const VerificationMethod method =
static_cast<VerificationMethod>(thread->rand.Uniform(
(FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) ? num_methods - 1 : num_methods));
if (method == VerificationMethod::kIterator) {
std::unique_ptr<Iterator> iter(
db_->NewIterator(options, column_families_[cf]));
std::string seek_key = Key(start);
iter->Seek(seek_key);
Slice prefix(seek_key.data(), prefix_to_use);
for (int64_t i = start; i < end; ++i) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
const std::string key = Key(i);
const Slice k(key);
const Slice pfx(key.data(), prefix_to_use);
// Reseek when the prefix changes
if (prefix_to_use > 0 && prefix.compare(pfx) != 0) {
iter->Seek(k);
seek_key = key;
prefix = Slice(seek_key.data(), prefix_to_use);
}
Status s = iter->status();
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
std::string from_db;
if (iter->Valid()) {
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
const int diff = iter->key().compare(k);
if (diff > 0) {
s = Status::NotFound();
} else if (diff == 0) {
if (!VerifyWideColumns(iter->value(), iter->columns())) {
VerificationAbort(shared, static_cast<int>(cf), i,
iter->value(), iter->columns());
}
from_db = iter->value().ToString();
iter->Next();
} else {
assert(diff < 0);
VerificationAbort(shared, "An out of range key was found",
static_cast<int>(cf), i);
}
} else {
// The iterator found no value for the key in question, so do not
// move to the next item in the iterator
s = Status::NotFound();
}
VerifyOrSyncValue(static_cast<int>(cf), i, options, shared, from_db,
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
/* msg_prefix */ "Iterator verification", s);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
} else if (method == VerificationMethod::kGet) {
for (int64_t i = start; i < end; ++i) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
const std::string key = Key(i);
std::string from_db;
Status s = db_->Get(options, column_families_[cf], key, &from_db);
VerifyOrSyncValue(static_cast<int>(cf), i, options, shared, from_db,
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
/* msg_prefix */ "Get verification", s);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
} else if (method == VerificationMethod::kGetEntity) {
for (int64_t i = start; i < end; ++i) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
const std::string key = Key(i);
PinnableWideColumns result;
Status s =
db_->GetEntity(options, column_families_[cf], key, &result);
std::string from_db;
if (s.ok()) {
const WideColumns& columns = result.columns();
if (!columns.empty() &&
columns.front().name() == kDefaultWideColumnName) {
from_db = columns.front().value().ToString();
}
if (!VerifyWideColumns(columns)) {
VerificationAbort(shared, static_cast<int>(cf), i, from_db,
columns);
}
}
VerifyOrSyncValue(static_cast<int>(cf), i, options, shared, from_db,
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
/* msg_prefix */ "GetEntity verification", s);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
} else if (method == VerificationMethod::kMultiGet) {
for (int64_t i = start; i < end;) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
// Keep the batch size to some reasonable value
size_t batch_size = thread->rand.Uniform(128) + 1;
batch_size = std::min<size_t>(batch_size, end - i);
std::vector<std::string> key_strs(batch_size);
std::vector<Slice> keys(batch_size);
std::vector<PinnableSlice> values(batch_size);
std::vector<Status> statuses(batch_size);
for (size_t j = 0; j < batch_size; ++j) {
key_strs[j] = Key(i + j);
keys[j] = Slice(key_strs[j]);
}
db_->MultiGet(options, column_families_[cf], batch_size, keys.data(),
values.data(), statuses.data());
for (size_t j = 0; j < batch_size; ++j) {
const std::string from_db = values[j].ToString();
VerifyOrSyncValue(static_cast<int>(cf), i + j, options, shared,
from_db, /* msg_prefix */ "MultiGet verification",
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
statuses[j]);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i + j),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
i += batch_size;
}
} else if (method == VerificationMethod::kMultiGetEntity) {
for (int64_t i = start; i < end;) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
// Keep the batch size to some reasonable value
size_t batch_size = thread->rand.Uniform(128) + 1;
batch_size = std::min<size_t>(batch_size, end - i);
std::vector<std::string> key_strs(batch_size);
std::vector<Slice> keys(batch_size);
std::vector<PinnableWideColumns> results(batch_size);
std::vector<Status> statuses(batch_size);
for (size_t j = 0; j < batch_size; ++j) {
key_strs[j] = Key(i + j);
keys[j] = Slice(key_strs[j]);
}
db_->MultiGetEntity(options, column_families_[cf], batch_size,
keys.data(), results.data(), statuses.data());
for (size_t j = 0; j < batch_size; ++j) {
std::string from_db;
if (statuses[j].ok()) {
const WideColumns& columns = results[j].columns();
if (!columns.empty() &&
columns.front().name() == kDefaultWideColumnName) {
from_db = columns.front().value().ToString();
}
if (!VerifyWideColumns(columns)) {
VerificationAbort(shared, static_cast<int>(cf), i, from_db,
columns);
}
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
VerifyOrSyncValue(
static_cast<int>(cf), i + j, options, shared, from_db,
/* msg_prefix */ "MultiGetEntity verification", statuses[j]);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i + j),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
i += batch_size;
}
} else {
assert(method == VerificationMethod::kGetMergeOperands);
// Start off with small size that will be increased later if necessary
std::vector<PinnableSlice> values(4);
GetMergeOperandsOptions merge_operands_info;
merge_operands_info.expected_max_number_of_operands =
static_cast<int>(values.size());
for (int64_t i = start; i < end; ++i) {
if (thread->shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
break;
}
const std::string key = Key(i);
const Slice k(key);
std::string from_db;
int number_of_operands = 0;
Status s = db_->GetMergeOperands(options, column_families_[cf], k,
values.data(), &merge_operands_info,
&number_of_operands);
if (s.IsIncomplete()) {
// Need to resize values as there are more than values.size() merge
// operands on this key. Should only happen a few times when we
// encounter a key that had more merge operands than any key seen so
// far
values.resize(number_of_operands);
merge_operands_info.expected_max_number_of_operands =
static_cast<int>(number_of_operands);
s = db_->GetMergeOperands(options, column_families_[cf], k,
values.data(), &merge_operands_info,
&number_of_operands);
}
// Assumed here that GetMergeOperands always sets number_of_operand
if (number_of_operands) {
from_db = values[number_of_operands - 1].ToString();
}
VerifyOrSyncValue(static_cast<int>(cf), i, options, shared, from_db,
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
/* msg_prefix */ "GetMergeOperands verification",
s);
if (!from_db.empty()) {
PrintKeyValue(static_cast<int>(cf), static_cast<uint32_t>(i),
from_db.data(), from_db.size());
}
}
}
}
}
void ContinuouslyVerifyDb(ThreadState* thread) const override {
if (!cmp_db_) {
return;
}
assert(cmp_db_);
assert(!cmp_cfhs_.empty());
Status s = cmp_db_->TryCatchUpWithPrimary();
if (!s.ok()) {
assert(false);
exit(1);
}
const auto checksum_column_family = [](Iterator* iter,
uint32_t* checksum) -> Status {
assert(nullptr != checksum);
uint32_t ret = 0;
for (iter->SeekToFirst(); iter->Valid(); iter->Next()) {
ret = crc32c::Extend(ret, iter->key().data(), iter->key().size());
ret = crc32c::Extend(ret, iter->value().data(), iter->value().size());
}
*checksum = ret;
return iter->status();
};
auto* shared = thread->shared;
assert(shared);
const int64_t max_key = shared->GetMaxKey();
ReadOptions read_opts(FLAGS_verify_checksum, true);
std::string ts_str;
Slice ts;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
ts_str = GetNowNanos();
ts = ts_str;
read_opts.timestamp = &ts;
}
static Random64 rand64(shared->GetSeed());
{
uint32_t crc = 0;
std::unique_ptr<Iterator> it(cmp_db_->NewIterator(read_opts));
s = checksum_column_family(it.get(), &crc);
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "Computing checksum of default cf: %s\n",
s.ToString().c_str());
assert(false);
}
}
for (auto* handle : cmp_cfhs_) {
if (thread->rand.OneInOpt(3)) {
// Use Get()
uint64_t key = rand64.Uniform(static_cast<uint64_t>(max_key));
std::string key_str = Key(key);
std::string value;
std::string key_ts;
s = cmp_db_->Get(read_opts, handle, key_str, &value,
FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0 ? &key_ts : nullptr);
s.PermitUncheckedError();
} else {
// Use range scan
std::unique_ptr<Iterator> iter(cmp_db_->NewIterator(read_opts, handle));
uint32_t rnd = (thread->rand.Next()) % 4;
if (0 == rnd) {
// SeekToFirst() + Next()*5
read_opts.total_order_seek = true;
iter->SeekToFirst();
for (int i = 0; i < 5 && iter->Valid(); ++i, iter->Next()) {
}
} else if (1 == rnd) {
// SeekToLast() + Prev()*5
read_opts.total_order_seek = true;
iter->SeekToLast();
for (int i = 0; i < 5 && iter->Valid(); ++i, iter->Prev()) {
}
} else if (2 == rnd) {
// Seek() +Next()*5
uint64_t key = rand64.Uniform(static_cast<uint64_t>(max_key));
std::string key_str = Key(key);
iter->Seek(key_str);
for (int i = 0; i < 5 && iter->Valid(); ++i, iter->Next()) {
}
} else {
// SeekForPrev() + Prev()*5
uint64_t key = rand64.Uniform(static_cast<uint64_t>(max_key));
std::string key_str = Key(key);
iter->SeekForPrev(key_str);
for (int i = 0; i < 5 && iter->Valid(); ++i, iter->Prev()) {
}
}
}
}
}
void MaybeClearOneColumnFamily(ThreadState* thread) override {
if (FLAGS_column_families > 1) {
if (thread->rand.OneInOpt(FLAGS_clear_column_family_one_in)) {
// drop column family and then create it again (can't drop default)
int cf = thread->rand.Next() % (FLAGS_column_families - 1) + 1;
std::string new_name =
std::to_string(new_column_family_name_.fetch_add(1));
{
MutexLock l(thread->shared->GetMutex());
fprintf(
stdout,
"[CF %d] Dropping and recreating column family. new name: %s\n",
cf, new_name.c_str());
}
thread->shared->LockColumnFamily(cf);
Status s = db_->DropColumnFamily(column_families_[cf]);
delete column_families_[cf];
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "dropping column family error: %s\n",
s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
s = db_->CreateColumnFamily(ColumnFamilyOptions(options_), new_name,
&column_families_[cf]);
column_family_names_[cf] = new_name;
thread->shared->ClearColumnFamily(cf);
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "creating column family error: %s\n",
s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
thread->shared->UnlockColumnFamily(cf);
}
}
}
bool ShouldAcquireMutexOnKey() const override { return true; }
bool IsStateTracked() const override { return true; }
Status TestGet(ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
auto cfh = column_families_[rand_column_families[0]];
std::string key_str = Key(rand_keys[0]);
Slice key = key_str;
std::string from_db;
int error_count = 0;
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->EnableErrorInjection();
SharedState::ignore_read_error = false;
}
ReadOptions read_opts_copy = read_opts;
std::string read_ts_str;
Slice read_ts_slice;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
read_ts_str = GetNowNanos();
read_ts_slice = read_ts_str;
read_opts_copy.timestamp = &read_ts_slice;
}
User-defined timestamp support for `DeleteRange()` (#10661) Summary: Add user-defined timestamp support for range deletion. The new API is `DeleteRange(opt, cf, begin_key, end_key, ts)`. Most of the change is to update the comparator to compare without timestamp. Other than that, major changes are - internal range tombstone data structures (`FragmentedRangeTombstoneList`, `RangeTombstone`, etc.) to store timestamps. - Garbage collection of range tombstones and range tombstone covered keys during compaction. - Get()/MultiGet() to return the timestamp of a range tombstone when needed. - Get/Iterator with range tombstones bounded by readoptions.timestamp. - timestamp crash test now issues DeleteRange by default. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10661 Test Plan: - Added unit test: `make check` - Stress test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --enable_ts whitebox --readpercent=57 --prefixpercent=4 --writepercent=25 -delpercent=5 --iterpercent=5 --delrangepercent=4` - Ran `db_bench` to measure regression when timestamp is not enabled. The tests are for write (with some range deletion) and iterate with DB fitting in memory: `./db_bench--benchmarks=fillrandom,seekrandom --writes_per_range_tombstone=200 --max_write_buffer_number=100 --min_write_buffer_number_to_merge=100 --writes=500000 --reads=500000 --seek_nexts=10 --disable_auto_compactions -disable_wal=true --max_num_range_tombstones=1000`. Did not see consistent regression in no timestamp case. | micros/op | fillrandom | seekrandom | | --- | --- | --- | |main| 2.58 |10.96| |PR 10661| 2.68 |10.63| Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39441192 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: f05aca3c41605caf110daf0ff405919f300ddec2
2 years ago
bool read_older_ts = MaybeUseOlderTimestampForPointLookup(
thread, read_ts_str, read_ts_slice, read_opts_copy);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value =
thread->shared->Get(rand_column_families[0], rand_keys[0]);
Status s = db_->Get(read_opts_copy, cfh, key, &from_db);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value =
thread->shared->Get(rand_column_families[0], rand_keys[0]);
if (fault_fs_guard) {
error_count = fault_fs_guard->GetAndResetErrorCount();
}
if (s.ok()) {
if (fault_fs_guard) {
if (error_count && !SharedState::ignore_read_error) {
// Grab mutex so multiple thread don't try to print the
// stack trace at the same time
MutexLock l(thread->shared->GetMutex());
fprintf(stderr, "Didn't get expected error from Get\n");
fprintf(stderr, "Callstack that injected the fault\n");
fault_fs_guard->PrintFaultBacktrace();
std::terminate();
}
}
// found case
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 1);
// we only have the latest expected state
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
if (!FLAGS_skip_verifydb && !read_older_ts) {
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveNotExisted(pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value)) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"error : inconsistent values for key %s: Get returns %s, "
"but expected state is \"deleted\".\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str(), StringToHex(from_db).c_str());
}
Slice from_db_slice(from_db);
uint32_t value_base_from_db = GetValueBase(from_db_slice);
if (!ExpectedValueHelper::InExpectedValueBaseRange(
value_base_from_db, pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value)) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"error : inconsistent values for key %s: Get returns %s with "
"value base %d that falls out of expected state's value base "
"range.\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str(), StringToHex(from_db).c_str(),
value_base_from_db);
}
}
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
// not found case
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 0);
User-defined timestamp support for `DeleteRange()` (#10661) Summary: Add user-defined timestamp support for range deletion. The new API is `DeleteRange(opt, cf, begin_key, end_key, ts)`. Most of the change is to update the comparator to compare without timestamp. Other than that, major changes are - internal range tombstone data structures (`FragmentedRangeTombstoneList`, `RangeTombstone`, etc.) to store timestamps. - Garbage collection of range tombstones and range tombstone covered keys during compaction. - Get()/MultiGet() to return the timestamp of a range tombstone when needed. - Get/Iterator with range tombstones bounded by readoptions.timestamp. - timestamp crash test now issues DeleteRange by default. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10661 Test Plan: - Added unit test: `make check` - Stress test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --enable_ts whitebox --readpercent=57 --prefixpercent=4 --writepercent=25 -delpercent=5 --iterpercent=5 --delrangepercent=4` - Ran `db_bench` to measure regression when timestamp is not enabled. The tests are for write (with some range deletion) and iterate with DB fitting in memory: `./db_bench--benchmarks=fillrandom,seekrandom --writes_per_range_tombstone=200 --max_write_buffer_number=100 --min_write_buffer_number_to_merge=100 --writes=500000 --reads=500000 --seek_nexts=10 --disable_auto_compactions -disable_wal=true --max_num_range_tombstones=1000`. Did not see consistent regression in no timestamp case. | micros/op | fillrandom | seekrandom | | --- | --- | --- | |main| 2.58 |10.96| |PR 10661| 2.68 |10.63| Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39441192 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: f05aca3c41605caf110daf0ff405919f300ddec2
2 years ago
if (!FLAGS_skip_verifydb && !read_older_ts) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value)) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"error : inconsistent values for key %s: expected state has "
"the key, Get() returns NotFound.\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
}
}
} else {
if (error_count == 0) {
// errors case
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
} else {
thread->stats.AddVerifiedErrors(1);
}
}
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->DisableErrorInjection();
}
return s;
}
std::vector<Status> TestMultiGet(
ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
size_t num_keys = rand_keys.size();
std::vector<std::string> key_str;
std::vector<Slice> keys;
key_str.reserve(num_keys);
keys.reserve(num_keys);
std::vector<PinnableSlice> values(num_keys);
std::vector<Status> statuses(num_keys);
// When Flags_use_txn is enabled, we also do a read your write check.
std::vector<std::optional<ExpectedValue>> ryw_expected_values;
ryw_expected_values.reserve(num_keys);
SharedState* shared = thread->shared;
int column_family = rand_column_families[0];
ColumnFamilyHandle* cfh = column_families_[column_family];
int error_count = 0;
// Do a consistency check between Get and MultiGet. Don't do it too
// often as it will slow db_stress down
bool do_consistency_check = thread->rand.OneIn(4);
ReadOptions readoptionscopy = read_opts;
if (do_consistency_check) {
readoptionscopy.snapshot = db_->GetSnapshot();
}
std::string read_ts_str;
Slice read_ts_slice;
MaybeUseOlderTimestampForPointLookup(thread, read_ts_str, read_ts_slice,
readoptionscopy);
Add rate-limiting support to batched MultiGet() (#10159) Summary: **Context/Summary:** https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9424 added rate-limiting support for user reads, which does not include batched `MultiGet()`s that call `RandomAccessFileReader::MultiRead()`. The reason is that it's harder (compared with RandomAccessFileReader::Read()) to implement the ideal rate-limiting where we first call `RateLimiter::RequestToken()` for allowed bytes to multi-read and then consume those bytes by satisfying as many requests in `MultiRead()` as possible. For example, it can be tricky to decide whether we want partially fulfilled requests within one `MultiRead()` or not. However, due to a recent urgent user request, we decide to pursue an elementary (but a conditionally ineffective) solution where we accumulate enough rate limiter requests toward the total bytes needed by one `MultiRead()` before doing that `MultiRead()`. This is not ideal when the total bytes are huge as we will actually consume a huge bandwidth from rate-limiter causing a burst on disk. This is not what we ultimately want with rate limiter. Therefore a follow-up work is noted through TODO comments. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10159 Test Plan: - Modified existing unit test `DBRateLimiterOnReadTest/DBRateLimiterOnReadTest.NewMultiGet` - Traced the underlying system calls `io_uring_enter` and verified they are 10 seconds apart from each other correctly under the setting of `strace -ftt -e trace=io_uring_enter ./db_bench -benchmarks=multireadrandom -db=/dev/shm/testdb2 -readonly -num=50 -threads=1 -multiread_batched=1 -batch_size=100 -duration=10 -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=200 -rate_limiter_refill_period_us=1000000 -rate_limit_bg_reads=1 -disable_auto_compactions=1 -rate_limit_user_ops=1` where each `MultiRead()` read about 2000 bytes (inspected by debugger) and the rate limiter grants 200 bytes per seconds. - Stress test: - Verified `./db_stress (-test_cf_consistency=1/test_batches_snapshots=1) -use_multiget=1 -cache_size=1048576 -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=10241024 -rate_limit_bg_reads=1 -rate_limit_user_ops=1` work Reviewed By: ajkr, anand1976 Differential Revision: D37135172 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: 73b8e8f14761e5d4b77235dfe5d41f4eea968bcd
2 years ago
readoptionscopy.rate_limiter_priority =
FLAGS_rate_limit_user_ops ? Env::IO_USER : Env::IO_TOTAL;
// To appease clang analyzer
const bool use_txn = FLAGS_use_txn;
// Create a transaction in order to write some data. The purpose is to
// exercise WriteBatchWithIndex::MultiGetFromBatchAndDB. The transaction
// will be rolled back once MultiGet returns.
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
std::unique_ptr<Transaction> txn;
if (use_txn) {
WriteOptions wo;
Rate-limit automatic WAL flush after each user write (#9607) Summary: **Context:** WAL flush is currently not rate-limited by `Options::rate_limiter`. This PR is to provide rate-limiting to auto WAL flush, the one that automatically happen after each user write operation (i.e, `Options::manual_wal_flush == false`), by adding `WriteOptions::rate_limiter_options`. Note that we are NOT rate-limiting WAL flush that do NOT automatically happen after each user write, such as `Options::manual_wal_flush == true + manual FlushWAL()` (rate-limiting multiple WAL flushes), for the benefits of: - being consistent with [ReadOptions::rate_limiter_priority](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/7.0.fb/include/rocksdb/options.h#L515) - being able to turn off some WAL flush's rate-limiting but not all (e.g, turn off specific the WAL flush of a critical user write like a service's heartbeat) `WriteOptions::rate_limiter_options` only accept `Env::IO_USER` and `Env::IO_TOTAL` currently due to an implementation constraint. - The constraint is that we currently queue parallel writes (including WAL writes) based on FIFO policy which does not factor rate limiter priority into this layer's scheduling. If we allow lower priorities such as `Env::IO_HIGH/MID/LOW` and such writes specified with lower priorities occurs before ones specified with higher priorities (even just by a tiny bit in arrival time), the former would have blocked the latter, leading to a "priority inversion" issue and contradictory to what we promise for rate-limiting priority. Therefore we only allow `Env::IO_USER` and `Env::IO_TOTAL` right now before improving that scheduling. A pre-requisite to this feature is to support operation-level rate limiting in `WritableFileWriter`, which is also included in this PR. **Summary:** - Renamed test suite `DBRateLimiterTest to DBRateLimiterOnReadTest` for adding a new test suite - Accept `rate_limiter_priority` in `WritableFileWriter`'s private and public write functions - Passed `WriteOptions::rate_limiter_options` to `WritableFileWriter` in the path of automatic WAL flush. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9607 Test Plan: - Added new unit test to verify existing flush/compaction rate-limiting does not break, since `DBTest, RateLimitingTest` is disabled and current db-level rate-limiting tests focus on read only (e.g, `db_rate_limiter_test`, `DBTest2, RateLimitedCompactionReads`). - Added new unit test `DBRateLimiterOnWriteWALTest, AutoWalFlush` - `strace -ftt -e trace=write ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq -db=/dev/shm/testdb -rate_limit_auto_wal_flush=1 -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=15 -rate_limiter_refill_period_us=1000000 -write_buffer_size=100000000 -disable_auto_compactions=1 -num=100` - verified that WAL flush(i.e, system-call _write_) were chunked into 15 bytes and each _write_ was roughly 1 second apart - verified the chunking disappeared when `-rate_limit_auto_wal_flush=0` - crash test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py blackbox --disable_wal=0 --rate_limit_auto_wal_flush=1 --rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=10485760 --interval=10` killed as normal **Benchmarked on flush/compaction to ensure no performance regression:** - compaction with rate-limiting (see table 1, avg over 1280-run): pre-change: **915635 micros/op**; post-change: **907350 micros/op (improved by 0.106%)** ``` #!/bin/bash TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/testdb START=1 NUM_DATA_ENTRY=8 N=10 rm -f compact_bmk_output.txt compact_bmk_output_2.txt dont_care_output.txt for i in $(eval echo "{$START..$NUM_DATA_ENTRY}") do NUM_RUN=$(($N*(2**($i-1)))) for j in $(eval echo "{$START..$NUM_RUN}") do ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -disable_auto_compactions=1 -write_buffer_size=6710886 > dont_care_output.txt && ./db_bench --benchmarks=compact -use_existing_db=1 -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=1 -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=100000000 | egrep 'compact' done > compact_bmk_output.txt && awk -v NUM_RUN=$NUM_RUN '{sum+=$3;sum_sqrt+=$3^2}END{print sum/NUM_RUN, sqrt(sum_sqrt/NUM_RUN-(sum/NUM_RUN)^2)}' compact_bmk_output.txt >> compact_bmk_output_2.txt done ``` - compaction w/o rate-limiting (see table 2, avg over 640-run): pre-change: **822197 micros/op**; post-change: **823148 micros/op (regressed by 0.12%)** ``` Same as above script, except that -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=0 ``` - flush with rate-limiting (see table 3, avg over 320-run, run on the [patch](https://github.com/hx235/rocksdb/commit/ee5c6023a9f6533fab9afdc681568daa21da4953) to augment current db_bench ): pre-change: **745752 micros/op**; post-change: **745331 micros/op (regressed by 0.06 %)** ``` #!/bin/bash TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/testdb START=1 NUM_DATA_ENTRY=8 N=10 rm -f flush_bmk_output.txt flush_bmk_output_2.txt for i in $(eval echo "{$START..$NUM_DATA_ENTRY}") do NUM_RUN=$(($N*(2**($i-1)))) for j in $(eval echo "{$START..$NUM_RUN}") do ./db_bench -db=$TEST_TMPDIR -write_buffer_size=1048576000 -num=1000000 -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=100000000 -benchmarks=fillseq,flush | egrep 'flush' done > flush_bmk_output.txt && awk -v NUM_RUN=$NUM_RUN '{sum+=$3;sum_sqrt+=$3^2}END{print sum/NUM_RUN, sqrt(sum_sqrt/NUM_RUN-(sum/NUM_RUN)^2)}' flush_bmk_output.txt >> flush_bmk_output_2.txt done ``` - flush w/o rate-limiting (see table 4, avg over 320-run, run on the [patch](https://github.com/hx235/rocksdb/commit/ee5c6023a9f6533fab9afdc681568daa21da4953) to augment current db_bench): pre-change: **487512 micros/op**, post-change: **485856 micors/ops (improved by 0.34%)** ``` Same as above script, except that -rate_limiter_bytes_per_sec=0 ``` | table 1 - compact with rate-limiting| #-run | (pre-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | change in avg micros/op (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 896978 | 16046.9 | 901242 | 15670.9 | 0.475373978 20 | 893718 | 15813 | 886505 | 17544.7 | -0.8070778478 40 | 900426 | 23882.2 | 894958 | 15104.5 | -0.6072681153 80 | 906635 | 21761.5 | 903332 | 23948.3 | -0.3643141948 160 | 898632 | 21098.9 | 907583 | 21145 | 0.9960695813 3.20E+02 | 905252 | 22785.5 | 908106 | 25325.5 | 0.3152713278 6.40E+02 | 905213 | 23598.6 | 906741 | 21370.5 | 0.1688000504 **1.28E+03** | **908316** | **23533.1** | **907350** | **24626.8** | **-0.1063506533** average over #-run | 901896.25 | 21064.9625 | 901977.125 | 20592.025 | 0.008967217682 | table 2 - compact w/o rate-limiting| #-run | (pre-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | change in avg micros/op (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 811211 | 26996.7 | 807586 | 28456.4 | -0.4468627768 20 | 815465 | 14803.7 | 814608 | 28719.7 | -0.105093413 40 | 809203 | 26187.1 | 797835 | 25492.1 | -1.404839082 80 | 822088 | 28765.3 | 822192 | 32840.4 | 0.01265071379 160 | 821719 | 36344.7 | 821664 | 29544.9 | -0.006693285661 3.20E+02 | 820921 | 27756.4 | 821403 | 28347.7 | 0.05871454135 **6.40E+02** | **822197** | **28960.6** | **823148** | **30055.1** | **0.1156657103** average over #-run | 8.18E+05 | 2.71E+04 | 8.15E+05 | 2.91E+04 | -0.25 | table 3 - flush with rate-limiting| #-run | (pre-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | change in avg micros/op (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 741721 | 11770.8 | 740345 | 5949.76 | -0.1855144994 20 | 735169 | 3561.83 | 743199 | 9755.77 | 1.09226586 40 | 743368 | 8891.03 | 742102 | 8683.22 | -0.1703059588 80 | 742129 | 8148.51 | 743417 | 9631.58| 0.1735547324 160 | 749045 | 9757.21 | 746256 | 9191.86 | -0.3723407806 **3.20E+02** | **745752** | **9819.65** | **745331** | **9840.62** | **-0.0564530836** 6.40E+02 | 749006 | 11080.5 | 748173 | 10578.7 | -0.1112140624 average over #-run | 743741.4286 | 9004.218571 | 744117.5714 | 9090.215714 | 0.05057441238 | table 4 - flush w/o rate-limiting| #-run | (pre-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | (post-change) avg micros/op | std micros/op | change in avg micros/op (%) -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 10 | 477283 | 24719.6 | 473864 | 12379 | -0.7163464863 20 | 486743 | 20175.2 | 502296 | 23931.3 | 3.195320734 40 | 482846 | 15309.2 | 489820 | 22259.5 | 1.444352858 80 | 491490 | 21883.1 | 490071 | 23085.7 | -0.2887139108 160 | 493347 | 28074.3 | 483609 | 21211.7 | -1.973864238 **3.20E+02** | **487512** | **21401.5** | **485856** | **22195.2** | **-0.3396839462** 6.40E+02 | 490307 | 25418.6 | 485435 | 22405.2 | -0.9936631539 average over #-run | 4.87E+05 | 2.24E+04 | 4.87E+05 | 2.11E+04 | 0.00E+00 Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D34442441 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: 4790f13e1e5c0a95ae1d1cc93ffcf69dc6e78bdd
3 years ago
if (FLAGS_rate_limit_auto_wal_flush) {
wo.rate_limiter_priority = Env::IO_USER;
}
Status s = NewTxn(wo, &txn);
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "NewTxn: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_keys; ++i) {
uint64_t rand_key = rand_keys[i];
key_str.emplace_back(Key(rand_key));
keys.emplace_back(key_str.back());
if (use_txn) {
if (!shared->AllowsOverwrite(rand_key) &&
shared->Exists(column_family, rand_key)) {
// Just do read your write checks for keys that allow overwrites.
ryw_expected_values.push_back(std::nullopt);
continue;
}
// With a 1 in 10 probability, insert the just added key in the batch
// into the transaction. This will create an overlap with the MultiGet
// keys and exercise some corner cases in the code
if (thread->rand.OneIn(10)) {
int op = thread->rand.Uniform(2);
Status s;
assert(txn);
switch (op) {
case 0:
case 1: {
ExpectedValue put_value;
put_value.Put(false /* pending */);
ryw_expected_values.emplace_back(put_value);
char value[100];
size_t sz =
GenerateValue(put_value.GetValueBase(), value, sizeof(value));
Slice v(value, sz);
if (op == 0) {
s = txn->Put(cfh, keys.back(), v);
} else {
s = txn->Merge(cfh, keys.back(), v);
}
break;
}
case 2: {
ExpectedValue delete_value;
delete_value.Delete(false /* pending */);
ryw_expected_values.emplace_back(delete_value);
s = txn->Delete(cfh, keys.back());
break;
}
default:
assert(false);
}
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "Transaction put: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
} else {
ryw_expected_values.push_back(std::nullopt);
}
}
}
if (!use_txn) {
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->EnableErrorInjection();
SharedState::ignore_read_error = false;
}
db_->MultiGet(readoptionscopy, cfh, num_keys, keys.data(), values.data(),
statuses.data());
if (fault_fs_guard) {
error_count = fault_fs_guard->GetAndResetErrorCount();
}
} else {
assert(txn);
txn->MultiGet(readoptionscopy, cfh, num_keys, keys.data(), values.data(),
statuses.data());
}
if (fault_fs_guard && error_count && !SharedState::ignore_read_error) {
int stat_nok = 0;
for (const auto& s : statuses) {
if (!s.ok() && !s.IsNotFound()) {
stat_nok++;
}
}
if (stat_nok < error_count) {
// Grab mutex so multiple thread don't try to print the
// stack trace at the same time
MutexLock l(thread->shared->GetMutex());
fprintf(stderr, "Didn't get expected error from MultiGet. \n");
fprintf(stderr, "num_keys %zu Expected %d errors, seen %d\n", num_keys,
error_count, stat_nok);
fprintf(stderr, "Callstack that injected the fault\n");
fault_fs_guard->PrintFaultBacktrace();
std::terminate();
}
}
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->DisableErrorInjection();
}
auto ryw_check =
[](const Slice& key, const PinnableSlice& value, const Status& s,
const std::optional<ExpectedValue>& ryw_expected_value) -> bool {
if (!ryw_expected_value.has_value()) {
return true;
}
const ExpectedValue& expected = ryw_expected_value.value();
char expected_value[100];
if (s.ok() &&
ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveNotExisted(expected, expected)) {
fprintf(stderr,
"MultiGet returned value different from what was "
"written for key %s\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr,
"MultiGet returned ok, transaction has non-committed "
"delete.\n");
return false;
} else if (s.IsNotFound() &&
ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(expected, expected)) {
fprintf(stderr,
"MultiGet returned value different from what was "
"written for key %s\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr,
"MultiGet returned not found, transaction has "
"non-committed value.\n");
return false;
} else if (s.ok() &&
ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(expected, expected)) {
Slice from_txn_slice(value);
size_t sz = GenerateValue(expected.GetValueBase(), expected_value,
sizeof(expected_value));
Slice expected_value_slice(expected_value, sz);
if (expected_value_slice.compare(from_txn_slice) == 0) {
return true;
}
fprintf(stderr,
"MultiGet returned value different from what was "
"written for key %s\n",
key.ToString(true /* hex */).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned value %s\n",
from_txn_slice.ToString(true /* hex */).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Transaction has non-committed value %s\n",
expected_value_slice.ToString(true /* hex */).c_str());
return false;
}
return true;
};
auto check_multiget =
[&](const Slice& key, const PinnableSlice& expected_value,
const Status& s,
const std::optional<ExpectedValue>& ryw_expected_value) -> bool {
bool is_consistent = true;
bool is_ryw_correct = true;
// Only do the consistency check if no error was injected and
// MultiGet didn't return an unexpected error. If test does not use
// transaction, the consistency check for each key included check results
// from db `Get` and db `MultiGet` are consistent.
// If test use transaction, after consistency check, also do a read your
// own write check.
if (do_consistency_check && !error_count && (s.ok() || s.IsNotFound())) {
Status tmp_s;
std::string value;
if (use_txn) {
assert(txn);
tmp_s = txn->Get(readoptionscopy, cfh, key, &value);
} else {
tmp_s = db_->Get(readoptionscopy, cfh, key, &value);
}
if (!tmp_s.ok() && !tmp_s.IsNotFound()) {
fprintf(stderr, "Get error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
is_consistent = false;
} else if (!s.ok() && tmp_s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned different results with key %s\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Get returned ok, MultiGet returned not found\n");
is_consistent = false;
} else if (s.ok() && tmp_s.IsNotFound()) {
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned different results with key %s\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned ok, Get returned not found\n");
is_consistent = false;
} else if (s.ok() && value != expected_value.ToString()) {
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned different results with key %s\n",
key.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet returned value %s\n",
expected_value.ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Get returned value %s\n",
Slice(value).ToString(true /* hex */).c_str());
is_consistent = false;
}
}
// If test uses transaction, continue to do a read your own write check.
if (is_consistent && use_txn) {
is_ryw_correct = ryw_check(key, expected_value, s, ryw_expected_value);
}
if (!is_consistent) {
fprintf(stderr, "TestMultiGet error: is_consistent is false\n");
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
// Fail fast to preserve the DB state
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
return false;
} else if (!is_ryw_correct) {
fprintf(stderr, "TestMultiGet error: is_ryw_correct is false\n");
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
// Fail fast to preserve the DB state
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
return false;
} else if (s.ok()) {
// found case
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 1);
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
// not found case
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 0);
} else if (s.IsMergeInProgress() && use_txn) {
// With txn this is sometimes expected.
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 1);
} else {
if (error_count == 0) {
// errors case
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGet error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
} else {
thread->stats.AddVerifiedErrors(1);
}
}
return true;
};
size_t num_of_keys = keys.size();
assert(values.size() == num_of_keys);
assert(statuses.size() == num_of_keys);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_of_keys; ++i) {
bool check_result = true;
if (use_txn) {
assert(ryw_expected_values.size() == num_of_keys);
check_result = check_multiget(keys[i], values[i], statuses[i],
ryw_expected_values[i]);
} else {
check_result = check_multiget(keys[i], values[i], statuses[i],
std::nullopt /* ryw_expected_value */);
}
if (!check_result) {
break;
}
}
if (readoptionscopy.snapshot) {
db_->ReleaseSnapshot(readoptionscopy.snapshot);
}
return statuses;
}
void TestGetEntity(ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->EnableErrorInjection();
SharedState::ignore_read_error = false;
}
assert(thread);
SharedState* const shared = thread->shared;
assert(shared);
assert(!rand_column_families.empty());
assert(!rand_keys.empty());
std::unique_ptr<MutexLock> lock(new MutexLock(
shared->GetMutexForKey(rand_column_families[0], rand_keys[0])));
assert(rand_column_families[0] >= 0);
assert(rand_column_families[0] < static_cast<int>(column_families_.size()));
ColumnFamilyHandle* const cfh = column_families_[rand_column_families[0]];
assert(cfh);
const std::string key = Key(rand_keys[0]);
PinnableWideColumns from_db;
const Status s = db_->GetEntity(read_opts, cfh, key, &from_db);
int error_count = 0;
if (fault_fs_guard) {
error_count = fault_fs_guard->GetAndResetErrorCount();
}
if (s.ok()) {
if (fault_fs_guard) {
if (error_count && !SharedState::ignore_read_error) {
// Grab mutex so multiple threads don't try to print the
// stack trace at the same time
MutexLock l(shared->GetMutex());
fprintf(stderr, "Didn't get expected error from GetEntity\n");
fprintf(stderr, "Call stack that injected the fault\n");
fault_fs_guard->PrintFaultBacktrace();
std::terminate();
}
}
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 1);
if (!FLAGS_skip_verifydb) {
const WideColumns& columns = from_db.columns();
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
ExpectedValue expected =
shared->Get(rand_column_families[0], rand_keys[0]);
if (!VerifyWideColumns(columns)) {
shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"error : inconsistent columns returned by GetEntity for key "
"%s: %s\n",
StringToHex(key).c_str(), WideColumnsToHex(columns).c_str());
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
} else if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveNotExisted(expected,
expected)) {
shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(
stderr,
"error : inconsistent values for key %s: GetEntity returns %s, "
"expected state does not have the key.\n",
StringToHex(key).c_str(), WideColumnsToHex(columns).c_str());
}
}
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 0);
if (!FLAGS_skip_verifydb) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
ExpectedValue expected =
shared->Get(rand_column_families[0], rand_keys[0]);
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(expected, expected)) {
shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"error : inconsistent values for key %s: expected state has "
"the key, GetEntity returns NotFound.\n",
StringToHex(key).c_str());
}
}
} else {
if (error_count == 0) {
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
} else {
thread->stats.AddVerifiedErrors(1);
}
}
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->DisableErrorInjection();
}
}
void TestMultiGetEntity(ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
assert(thread);
ManagedSnapshot snapshot_guard(db_);
ReadOptions read_opts_copy(read_opts);
read_opts_copy.snapshot = snapshot_guard.snapshot();
assert(!rand_column_families.empty());
assert(rand_column_families[0] >= 0);
assert(rand_column_families[0] < static_cast<int>(column_families_.size()));
ColumnFamilyHandle* const cfh = column_families_[rand_column_families[0]];
assert(cfh);
assert(!rand_keys.empty());
const size_t num_keys = rand_keys.size();
std::vector<std::string> keys(num_keys);
std::vector<Slice> key_slices(num_keys);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_keys; ++i) {
keys[i] = Key(rand_keys[i]);
key_slices[i] = keys[i];
}
std::vector<PinnableWideColumns> results(num_keys);
std::vector<Status> statuses(num_keys);
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->EnableErrorInjection();
SharedState::ignore_read_error = false;
}
db_->MultiGetEntity(read_opts_copy, cfh, num_keys, key_slices.data(),
results.data(), statuses.data());
int error_count = 0;
if (fault_fs_guard) {
error_count = fault_fs_guard->GetAndResetErrorCount();
if (error_count && !SharedState::ignore_read_error) {
int stat_nok = 0;
for (const auto& s : statuses) {
if (!s.ok() && !s.IsNotFound()) {
stat_nok++;
}
}
if (stat_nok < error_count) {
// Grab mutex so multiple threads don't try to print the
// stack trace at the same time
assert(thread->shared);
MutexLock l(thread->shared->GetMutex());
fprintf(stderr, "Didn't get expected error from MultiGetEntity\n");
fprintf(stderr, "num_keys %zu Expected %d errors, seen %d\n",
num_keys, error_count, stat_nok);
fprintf(stderr, "Call stack that injected the fault\n");
fault_fs_guard->PrintFaultBacktrace();
std::terminate();
}
}
fault_fs_guard->DisableErrorInjection();
}
const bool check_get_entity = !error_count && thread->rand.OneIn(4);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_keys; ++i) {
const Status& s = statuses[i];
bool is_consistent = true;
if (s.ok() && !VerifyWideColumns(results[i].columns())) {
fprintf(
stderr,
"error : inconsistent columns returned by MultiGetEntity for key "
"%s: %s\n",
StringToHex(keys[i]).c_str(),
WideColumnsToHex(results[i].columns()).c_str());
is_consistent = false;
} else if (check_get_entity && (s.ok() || s.IsNotFound())) {
PinnableWideColumns cmp_result;
const Status cmp_s =
db_->GetEntity(read_opts_copy, cfh, key_slices[i], &cmp_result);
if (!cmp_s.ok() && !cmp_s.IsNotFound()) {
fprintf(stderr, "GetEntity error: %s\n", cmp_s.ToString().c_str());
is_consistent = false;
} else if (cmp_s.IsNotFound()) {
if (s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr,
"Inconsistent results for key %s: MultiGetEntity returned "
"ok, GetEntity returned not found\n",
StringToHex(keys[i]).c_str());
is_consistent = false;
}
} else {
assert(cmp_s.ok());
if (s.IsNotFound()) {
fprintf(stderr,
"Inconsistent results for key %s: MultiGetEntity returned "
"not found, GetEntity returned ok\n",
StringToHex(keys[i]).c_str());
is_consistent = false;
} else {
assert(s.ok());
if (results[i] != cmp_result) {
fprintf(
stderr,
"Inconsistent results for key %s: MultiGetEntity returned "
"%s, GetEntity returned %s\n",
StringToHex(keys[i]).c_str(),
WideColumnsToHex(results[i].columns()).c_str(),
WideColumnsToHex(cmp_result.columns()).c_str());
is_consistent = false;
}
}
}
}
if (!is_consistent) {
fprintf(stderr,
"TestMultiGetEntity error: results are not consistent\n");
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
// Fail fast to preserve the DB state
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
break;
} else if (s.ok()) {
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 1);
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
thread->stats.AddGets(1, 0);
} else {
if (error_count == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "MultiGetEntity error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
} else {
thread->stats.AddVerifiedErrors(1);
}
}
}
}
Status TestPrefixScan(ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
assert(!rand_column_families.empty());
assert(!rand_keys.empty());
ColumnFamilyHandle* const cfh = column_families_[rand_column_families[0]];
assert(cfh);
const std::string key = Key(rand_keys[0]);
const Slice prefix(key.data(), FLAGS_prefix_size);
std::string upper_bound;
Slice ub_slice;
ReadOptions ro_copy = read_opts;
// Get the next prefix first and then see if we want to set upper bound.
// We'll use the next prefix in an assertion later on
if (GetNextPrefix(prefix, &upper_bound) && thread->rand.OneIn(2)) {
// For half of the time, set the upper bound to the next prefix
ub_slice = Slice(upper_bound);
ro_copy.iterate_upper_bound = &ub_slice;
}
std::string read_ts_str;
Slice read_ts_slice;
MaybeUseOlderTimestampForRangeScan(thread, read_ts_str, read_ts_slice,
ro_copy);
std::unique_ptr<Iterator> iter(db_->NewIterator(ro_copy, cfh));
uint64_t count = 0;
Status s;
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->EnableErrorInjection();
SharedState::ignore_read_error = false;
}
for (iter->Seek(prefix); iter->Valid() && iter->key().starts_with(prefix);
iter->Next()) {
++count;
// When iter_start_ts is set, iterator exposes internal keys, including
// tombstones; however, we want to perform column validation only for
// value-like types.
if (ro_copy.iter_start_ts) {
const ValueType value_type = ExtractValueType(iter->key());
if (value_type != kTypeValue && value_type != kTypeBlobIndex &&
value_type != kTypeWideColumnEntity) {
continue;
}
}
if (!VerifyWideColumns(iter->value(), iter->columns())) {
s = Status::Corruption("Value and columns inconsistent",
DebugString(iter->value(), iter->columns()));
break;
}
}
if (ro_copy.iter_start_ts == nullptr) {
assert(count <= GetPrefixKeyCount(prefix.ToString(), upper_bound));
}
if (s.ok()) {
s = iter->status();
}
uint64_t error_count = 0;
if (fault_fs_guard) {
error_count = fault_fs_guard->GetAndResetErrorCount();
}
if (!s.ok() && (!fault_fs_guard || (fault_fs_guard && !error_count))) {
fprintf(stderr, "TestPrefixScan error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return s;
}
if (fault_fs_guard) {
fault_fs_guard->DisableErrorInjection();
}
thread->stats.AddPrefixes(1, count);
return Status::OK();
}
Status TestPut(ThreadState* thread, WriteOptions& write_opts,
const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys,
char (&value)[100]) override {
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
assert(!rand_column_families.empty());
assert(!rand_keys.empty());
auto shared = thread->shared;
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
assert(shared);
const int64_t max_key = shared->GetMaxKey();
int64_t rand_key = rand_keys[0];
int rand_column_family = rand_column_families[0];
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
std::string write_ts;
std::unique_ptr<MutexLock> lock(
new MutexLock(shared->GetMutexForKey(rand_column_family, rand_key)));
while (!shared->AllowsOverwrite(rand_key) &&
(FLAGS_use_merge || shared->Exists(rand_column_family, rand_key))) {
lock.reset();
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
rand_key = thread->rand.Next() % max_key;
rand_column_family = thread->rand.Next() % FLAGS_column_families;
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
lock.reset(
new MutexLock(shared->GetMutexForKey(rand_column_family, rand_key)));
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
write_ts = GetNowNanos();
}
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
if (write_ts.empty() && FLAGS_user_timestamp_size) {
write_ts = GetNowNanos();
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
const std::string k = Key(rand_key);
ColumnFamilyHandle* const cfh = column_families_[rand_column_family];
assert(cfh);
if (FLAGS_verify_before_write) {
std::string from_db;
Status s = db_->Get(read_opts, cfh, k, &from_db);
if (!VerifyOrSyncValue(rand_column_family, rand_key, read_opts, shared,
/* msg_prefix */ "Pre-Put Get verification",
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
from_db, s)) {
return s;
}
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
PendingExpectedValue pending_expected_value =
shared->PreparePut(rand_column_family, rand_key);
const uint32_t value_base = pending_expected_value.GetFinalValueBase();
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
const size_t sz = GenerateValue(value_base, value, sizeof(value));
const Slice v(value, sz);
Status s;
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
if (FLAGS_use_merge) {
if (!FLAGS_use_txn) {
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size == 0) {
s = db_->Merge(write_opts, cfh, k, v);
} else {
s = db_->Merge(write_opts, cfh, k, write_ts, v);
}
} else {
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
s = ExecuteTransaction(write_opts, thread, [&](Transaction& txn) {
return txn.Merge(cfh, k, v);
});
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
} else if (FLAGS_use_put_entity_one_in > 0 &&
(value_base % FLAGS_use_put_entity_one_in) == 0) {
s = db_->PutEntity(write_opts, cfh, k,
GenerateWideColumns(value_base, v));
} else {
if (!FLAGS_use_txn) {
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size == 0) {
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
s = db_->Put(write_opts, cfh, k, v);
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
} else {
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
s = db_->Put(write_opts, cfh, k, write_ts, v);
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
}
} else {
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
s = ExecuteTransaction(write_opts, thread, [&](Transaction& txn) {
return txn.Put(cfh, k, v);
});
}
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
pending_expected_value.Commit();
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
if (!s.ok()) {
if (FLAGS_injest_error_severity >= 2) {
if (!is_db_stopped_ && s.severity() >= Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
is_db_stopped_ = true;
} else if (!is_db_stopped_ ||
s.severity() < Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
fprintf(stderr, "put or merge error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "put or merge error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
}
Add the PutEntity API to the stress/crash tests (#10760) Summary: The patch adds the `PutEntity` API to the non-batched, batched, and CF consistency stress tests. Namely, when the new `db_stress` command line parameter `use_put_entity_one_in` is greater than zero, one in N writes on average is performed using `PutEntity` rather than `Put`. The wide-column entity written has the generated value in its default column; in addition, it contains up to three additional columns where the original generated value is divided up between the column name and the column value (with the column name containing the first k characters of the generated value, and the column value containing the rest). Whether `PutEntity` is used (and if so, how many columns the entity has) is completely determined by the "value base" used to generate the value (that is, there is no randomness involved). Assuming the same `use_put_entity_one_in` setting is used across `db_stress` invocations, this enables us to reconstruct and validate the entity during subsequent `db_stress` runs. Note that `PutEntity` is currently incompatible with `Merge`, transactions, and user-defined timestamps; these combinations are currently disabled/disallowed. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10760 Test Plan: Ran some batched, non-batched, and CF consistency stress tests using the script. Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39939032 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: eafdf124e95993fb7d73158e3b006d11819f7fa9
2 years ago
thread->stats.AddBytesForWrites(1, sz);
PrintKeyValue(rand_column_family, static_cast<uint32_t>(rand_key), value,
sz);
return s;
}
Status TestDelete(ThreadState* thread, WriteOptions& write_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
int64_t rand_key = rand_keys[0];
int rand_column_family = rand_column_families[0];
auto shared = thread->shared;
std::unique_ptr<MutexLock> lock(
new MutexLock(shared->GetMutexForKey(rand_column_family, rand_key)));
// OPERATION delete
std::string write_ts_str = GetNowNanos();
Slice write_ts = write_ts_str;
std::string key_str = Key(rand_key);
Slice key = key_str;
auto cfh = column_families_[rand_column_family];
// Use delete if the key may be overwritten and a single deletion
// otherwise.
Status s;
if (shared->AllowsOverwrite(rand_key)) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
PendingExpectedValue pending_expected_value =
shared->PrepareDelete(rand_column_family, rand_key);
if (!FLAGS_use_txn) {
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size == 0) {
s = db_->Delete(write_opts, cfh, key);
} else {
s = db_->Delete(write_opts, cfh, key, write_ts);
}
} else {
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
s = ExecuteTransaction(write_opts, thread, [&](Transaction& txn) {
return txn.Delete(cfh, key);
});
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
pending_expected_value.Commit();
thread->stats.AddDeletes(1);
if (!s.ok()) {
if (FLAGS_injest_error_severity >= 2) {
if (!is_db_stopped_ &&
s.severity() >= Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
is_db_stopped_ = true;
} else if (!is_db_stopped_ ||
s.severity() < Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
fprintf(stderr, "delete error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "delete error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
}
} else {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
PendingExpectedValue pending_expected_value =
shared->PrepareSingleDelete(rand_column_family, rand_key);
if (!FLAGS_use_txn) {
Revise APIs related to user-defined timestamp (#8946) Summary: ajkr reminded me that we have a rule of not including per-kv related data in `WriteOptions`. Namely, `WriteOptions` should not include information about "what-to-write", but should just include information about "how-to-write". According to this rule, `WriteOptions::timestamp` (experimental) is clearly a violation. Therefore, this PR removes `WriteOptions::timestamp` for compliance. After the removal, we need to pass timestamp info via another set of APIs. This PR proposes a set of overloaded functions `Put(write_opts, key, value, ts)`, `Delete(write_opts, key, ts)`, and `SingleDelete(write_opts, key, ts)`. Planned to add `Write(write_opts, batch, ts)`, but its complexity made me reconsider doing it in another PR (maybe). For better checking and returning error early, we also add a new set of APIs to `WriteBatch` that take extra `timestamp` information when writing to `WriteBatch`es. These set of APIs in `WriteBatchWithIndex` are currently not supported, and are on our TODO list. Removed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamps()` and renamed `WriteBatch::AssignTimestamp()` to `WriteBatch::UpdateTimestamps()` since this method require that all keys have space for timestamps allocated already and multiple timestamps can be updated. The constructor of `WriteBatch` now takes a fourth argument `default_cf_ts_sz` which is the timestamp size of the default column family. This will be used to allocate space when calling APIs that do not specify a column family handle. Also, updated `DB::Get()`, `DB::MultiGet()`, `DB::NewIterator()`, `DB::NewIterators()` methods, replacing some assertions about timestamp to returning Status code. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/8946 Test Plan: make check ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,fillrandom,readrandom,readseq,deleterandom -user_timestamp_size=8 ./db_stress --user_timestamp_size=8 -nooverwritepercent=0 -test_secondary=0 -secondary_catch_up_one_in=0 -continuous_verification_interval=0 Make sure there is no perf regression by running the following ``` ./db_bench_opt -db=/dev/shm/rocksdb -use_existing_db=0 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=256 -level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=256 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=256 -disable_wal=1 -duration=10 -benchmarks=fillrandom ``` Before this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.831 micros/op 546235 ops/sec; 60.4 MB/s ``` After this PR ``` DB path: [/dev/shm/rocksdb] fillrandom : 1.820 micros/op 549404 ops/sec; 60.8 MB/s ``` Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D33721359 Pulled By: riversand963 fbshipit-source-id: c131561534272c120ffb80711d42748d21badf09
3 years ago
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size == 0) {
s = db_->SingleDelete(write_opts, cfh, key);
} else {
s = db_->SingleDelete(write_opts, cfh, key, write_ts);
}
} else {
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
s = ExecuteTransaction(write_opts, thread, [&](Transaction& txn) {
return txn.SingleDelete(cfh, key);
});
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
pending_expected_value.Commit();
thread->stats.AddSingleDeletes(1);
if (!s.ok()) {
if (FLAGS_injest_error_severity >= 2) {
if (!is_db_stopped_ &&
s.severity() >= Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
is_db_stopped_ = true;
} else if (!is_db_stopped_ ||
s.severity() < Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
fprintf(stderr, "single delete error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "single delete error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
}
}
return s;
}
Status TestDeleteRange(ThreadState* thread, WriteOptions& write_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
// OPERATION delete range
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<MutexLock>> range_locks;
// delete range does not respect disallowed overwrites. the keys for
// which overwrites are disallowed are randomly distributed so it
// could be expensive to find a range where each key allows
// overwrites.
int64_t rand_key = rand_keys[0];
int rand_column_family = rand_column_families[0];
auto shared = thread->shared;
int64_t max_key = shared->GetMaxKey();
if (rand_key > max_key - FLAGS_range_deletion_width) {
rand_key =
thread->rand.Next() % (max_key - FLAGS_range_deletion_width + 1);
}
for (int j = 0; j < FLAGS_range_deletion_width; ++j) {
if (j == 0 ||
((rand_key + j) & ((1 << FLAGS_log2_keys_per_lock) - 1)) == 0) {
range_locks.emplace_back(new MutexLock(
shared->GetMutexForKey(rand_column_family, rand_key + j)));
}
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
std::vector<PendingExpectedValue> pending_expected_values =
shared->PrepareDeleteRange(rand_column_family, rand_key,
rand_key + FLAGS_range_deletion_width);
const int covered = static_cast<int>(pending_expected_values.size());
std::string keystr = Key(rand_key);
Slice key = keystr;
auto cfh = column_families_[rand_column_family];
std::string end_keystr = Key(rand_key + FLAGS_range_deletion_width);
Slice end_key = end_keystr;
User-defined timestamp support for `DeleteRange()` (#10661) Summary: Add user-defined timestamp support for range deletion. The new API is `DeleteRange(opt, cf, begin_key, end_key, ts)`. Most of the change is to update the comparator to compare without timestamp. Other than that, major changes are - internal range tombstone data structures (`FragmentedRangeTombstoneList`, `RangeTombstone`, etc.) to store timestamps. - Garbage collection of range tombstones and range tombstone covered keys during compaction. - Get()/MultiGet() to return the timestamp of a range tombstone when needed. - Get/Iterator with range tombstones bounded by readoptions.timestamp. - timestamp crash test now issues DeleteRange by default. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10661 Test Plan: - Added unit test: `make check` - Stress test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --enable_ts whitebox --readpercent=57 --prefixpercent=4 --writepercent=25 -delpercent=5 --iterpercent=5 --delrangepercent=4` - Ran `db_bench` to measure regression when timestamp is not enabled. The tests are for write (with some range deletion) and iterate with DB fitting in memory: `./db_bench--benchmarks=fillrandom,seekrandom --writes_per_range_tombstone=200 --max_write_buffer_number=100 --min_write_buffer_number_to_merge=100 --writes=500000 --reads=500000 --seek_nexts=10 --disable_auto_compactions -disable_wal=true --max_num_range_tombstones=1000`. Did not see consistent regression in no timestamp case. | micros/op | fillrandom | seekrandom | | --- | --- | --- | |main| 2.58 |10.96| |PR 10661| 2.68 |10.63| Reviewed By: riversand963 Differential Revision: D39441192 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: f05aca3c41605caf110daf0ff405919f300ddec2
2 years ago
std::string write_ts_str;
Slice write_ts;
Status s;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size) {
write_ts_str = GetNowNanos();
write_ts = write_ts_str;
s = db_->DeleteRange(write_opts, cfh, key, end_key, write_ts);
} else {
s = db_->DeleteRange(write_opts, cfh, key, end_key);
}
if (!s.ok()) {
if (FLAGS_injest_error_severity >= 2) {
if (!is_db_stopped_ && s.severity() >= Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
is_db_stopped_ = true;
} else if (!is_db_stopped_ ||
s.severity() < Status::Severity::kFatalError) {
fprintf(stderr, "delete range error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "delete range error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
for (PendingExpectedValue& pending_expected_value :
pending_expected_values) {
pending_expected_value.Commit();
}
thread->stats.AddRangeDeletions(1);
thread->stats.AddCoveredByRangeDeletions(covered);
return s;
}
void TestIngestExternalFile(ThreadState* thread,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
const std::string sst_filename =
FLAGS_db + "/." + std::to_string(thread->tid) + ".sst";
Status s;
if (db_stress_env->FileExists(sst_filename).ok()) {
// Maybe we terminated abnormally before, so cleanup to give this file
// ingestion a clean slate
s = db_stress_env->DeleteFile(sst_filename);
}
SstFileWriter sst_file_writer(EnvOptions(options_), options_);
if (s.ok()) {
s = sst_file_writer.Open(sst_filename);
}
int64_t key_base = rand_keys[0];
int column_family = rand_column_families[0];
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<MutexLock>> range_locks;
range_locks.reserve(FLAGS_ingest_external_file_width);
std::vector<int64_t> keys;
keys.reserve(FLAGS_ingest_external_file_width);
std::vector<uint32_t> values;
values.reserve(FLAGS_ingest_external_file_width);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
std::vector<PendingExpectedValue> pending_expected_values;
pending_expected_values.reserve(FLAGS_ingest_external_file_width);
SharedState* shared = thread->shared;
assert(FLAGS_nooverwritepercent < 100);
// Grab locks, set pending state on expected values, and add keys
for (int64_t key = key_base;
s.ok() && key < shared->GetMaxKey() &&
static_cast<int32_t>(keys.size()) < FLAGS_ingest_external_file_width;
++key) {
if (key == key_base ||
(key & ((1 << FLAGS_log2_keys_per_lock) - 1)) == 0) {
range_locks.emplace_back(
new MutexLock(shared->GetMutexForKey(column_family, key)));
}
if (!shared->AllowsOverwrite(key)) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
// We could alternatively include `key` that is deleted.
continue;
}
keys.push_back(key);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
PendingExpectedValue pending_expected_value =
shared->PreparePut(column_family, key);
const uint32_t value_base = pending_expected_value.GetFinalValueBase();
values.push_back(value_base);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
pending_expected_values.push_back(pending_expected_value);
char value[100];
size_t value_len = GenerateValue(value_base, value, sizeof(value));
auto key_str = Key(key);
s = sst_file_writer.Put(Slice(key_str), Slice(value, value_len));
}
if (s.ok() && keys.empty()) {
return;
}
if (s.ok()) {
s = sst_file_writer.Finish();
}
if (s.ok()) {
s = db_->IngestExternalFile(column_families_[column_family],
{sst_filename}, IngestExternalFileOptions());
}
if (!s.ok()) {
fprintf(stderr, "file ingestion error: %s\n", s.ToString().c_str());
Allow TryAgain in db_stress with optimistic txn, and refactoring (#11653) Summary: In rare cases, optimistic transaction commit returns TryAgain. This change tolerates that intentional behavior in db_stress, up to a small limit in a row. This way, we don't miss a possible regression with excessive TryAgain, and trying again (rolling back the transaction) should have a well renewed chance of success as the writes will be associated with fresh sequence numbers. Also, some of the APIs were not clear about Transaction semantics, so I have clarified: * (Best I can tell....) Destroying a Transaction is safe without calling Rollback() (or at least should be). I don't know why it's a common pattern in our test code and examples to rollback before unconditional destruction. Stress test updated not to call Rollback unnecessarily (to test safe destruction). * Despite essentially doing what is asked, simply trying Commit() again when it returns TryAgain does not have a chance of success, because of the transaction being bound to the DB state at the time of operations before Commit. Similar logic applies to Busy AFAIK. Commit() API comments updated, and expanded unit test in optimistic_transaction_test. Also also, because I can't stop myself, I refactored a good portion of the transaction handling code in db_stress. * Avoid existing and new copy-paste for most transaction interactions with a new ExecuteTransaction (higher-order) function. * Use unique_ptr (nicely complements removing unnecessary Rollbacks) * Abstract out a pattern for safely calling std::terminate() and use it in more places. (The TryAgain errors we saw did not have stack traces because of "terminate called recursively".) Intended follow-up: resurrect use of `FLAGS_rollback_one_in` but also include non-trivial cases Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11653 Test Plan: this is the test :) Also, temporarily bypassed the new retry logic and boosted the chance of hitting TryAgain. Quickly reproduced the TryAgain error. Then re-enabled the new retry logic, and was not able to hit the error after running for tens of minutes, even with the boosted chances. Reviewed By: cbi42 Differential Revision: D47882995 Pulled By: pdillinger fbshipit-source-id: 21eadb1525423340dbf28d17cf166b9583311a0d
1 year ago
thread->shared->SafeTerminate();
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
for (size_t i = 0; i < pending_expected_values.size(); ++i) {
pending_expected_values[i].Commit();
}
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// Given a key K, this creates an iterator which scans the range
// [K, K + FLAGS_num_iterations) forward and backward.
// Then does a random sequence of Next/Prev operations.
Status TestIterateAgainstExpected(
ThreadState* thread, const ReadOptions& read_opts,
const std::vector<int>& rand_column_families,
const std::vector<int64_t>& rand_keys) override {
assert(thread);
assert(!rand_column_families.empty());
assert(!rand_keys.empty());
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
auto shared = thread->shared;
assert(shared);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
int64_t max_key = shared->GetMaxKey();
const int64_t num_iter = static_cast<int64_t>(FLAGS_num_iterations);
int64_t lb = rand_keys[0];
if (lb > max_key - num_iter) {
lb = thread->rand.Next() % (max_key - num_iter + 1);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
}
const int64_t ub = lb + num_iter;
// Lock the whole range over which we might iterate to ensure it doesn't
// change under us.
const int rand_column_family = rand_column_families[0];
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
// Testing parallel read and write to the same key with user timestamp
// is not currently supported
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<MutexLock>> range_locks;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
range_locks = shared->GetLocksForKeyRange(rand_column_family, lb, ub);
}
ReadOptions ro(read_opts);
ro.total_order_seek = true;
Verify Iterator/Get() against expected state in only `no_batched_ops_test` (#10590) Summary: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10538 added `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` in `no_batched_ops_test` to verify iterator correctness against the in memory expected state. It is not compatible when run after some other stress tests, e.g. `TestPut()` in `batched_op_stress`, that either do not set expected state when writing to DB or use keys that cannot be parsed by `GetIntVal()`. The assert [here](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/d17be55aab80b856f96f4af89f8d18fef96646b4/db_stress_tool/db_stress_common.h#L520) could fail. This PR fixed this issue by setting iterator upperbound to `max_key` when `destroy_db_initially=0` to avoid the key space that `batched_op_stress` touches. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10590 Test Plan: ``` # set up DB with batched_op_stress ./db_stress --test_batches_snapshots=1 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=85 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=10 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 # Before this PR, the following test will fail the asserts with error msg like the following # Assertion failed: (size_key <= key_gen_ctx.weights.size() * sizeof(uint64_t)), function GetIntVal, file db_stress_common.h, line 524. ./db_stress --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=0 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=95 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 --destroy_db_initially=0 ``` Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D39085243 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: a7dfee2320c330773b623b442d730fd014ec7056
2 years ago
std::string read_ts_str;
Slice read_ts;
if (FLAGS_user_timestamp_size > 0) {
read_ts_str = GetNowNanos();
read_ts = read_ts_str;
ro.timestamp = &read_ts;
Verify Iterator/Get() against expected state in only `no_batched_ops_test` (#10590) Summary: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10538 added `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` in `no_batched_ops_test` to verify iterator correctness against the in memory expected state. It is not compatible when run after some other stress tests, e.g. `TestPut()` in `batched_op_stress`, that either do not set expected state when writing to DB or use keys that cannot be parsed by `GetIntVal()`. The assert [here](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/d17be55aab80b856f96f4af89f8d18fef96646b4/db_stress_tool/db_stress_common.h#L520) could fail. This PR fixed this issue by setting iterator upperbound to `max_key` when `destroy_db_initially=0` to avoid the key space that `batched_op_stress` touches. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10590 Test Plan: ``` # set up DB with batched_op_stress ./db_stress --test_batches_snapshots=1 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=85 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=10 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 # Before this PR, the following test will fail the asserts with error msg like the following # Assertion failed: (size_key <= key_gen_ctx.weights.size() * sizeof(uint64_t)), function GetIntVal, file db_stress_common.h, line 524. ./db_stress --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=0 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=95 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 --destroy_db_initially=0 ``` Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D39085243 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: a7dfee2320c330773b623b442d730fd014ec7056
2 years ago
}
Verify Iterator/Get() against expected state in only `no_batched_ops_test` (#10590) Summary: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10538 added `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` in `no_batched_ops_test` to verify iterator correctness against the in memory expected state. It is not compatible when run after some other stress tests, e.g. `TestPut()` in `batched_op_stress`, that either do not set expected state when writing to DB or use keys that cannot be parsed by `GetIntVal()`. The assert [here](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/d17be55aab80b856f96f4af89f8d18fef96646b4/db_stress_tool/db_stress_common.h#L520) could fail. This PR fixed this issue by setting iterator upperbound to `max_key` when `destroy_db_initially=0` to avoid the key space that `batched_op_stress` touches. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10590 Test Plan: ``` # set up DB with batched_op_stress ./db_stress --test_batches_snapshots=1 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=85 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=10 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 # Before this PR, the following test will fail the asserts with error msg like the following # Assertion failed: (size_key <= key_gen_ctx.weights.size() * sizeof(uint64_t)), function GetIntVal, file db_stress_common.h, line 524. ./db_stress --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=0 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=95 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 --destroy_db_initially=0 ``` Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D39085243 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: a7dfee2320c330773b623b442d730fd014ec7056
2 years ago
std::string max_key_str;
Slice max_key_slice;
if (!FLAGS_destroy_db_initially) {
max_key_str = Key(max_key);
max_key_slice = max_key_str;
// to restrict iterator from reading keys written in batched_op_stress
// that do not have expected state updated and may not be parseable by
// GetIntVal().
ro.iterate_upper_bound = &max_key_slice;
Verify Iterator/Get() against expected state in only `no_batched_ops_test` (#10590) Summary: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10538 added `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` in `no_batched_ops_test` to verify iterator correctness against the in memory expected state. It is not compatible when run after some other stress tests, e.g. `TestPut()` in `batched_op_stress`, that either do not set expected state when writing to DB or use keys that cannot be parsed by `GetIntVal()`. The assert [here](https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/d17be55aab80b856f96f4af89f8d18fef96646b4/db_stress_tool/db_stress_common.h#L520) could fail. This PR fixed this issue by setting iterator upperbound to `max_key` when `destroy_db_initially=0` to avoid the key space that `batched_op_stress` touches. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10590 Test Plan: ``` # set up DB with batched_op_stress ./db_stress --test_batches_snapshots=1 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=85 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=10 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 # Before this PR, the following test will fail the asserts with error msg like the following # Assertion failed: (size_key <= key_gen_ctx.weights.size() * sizeof(uint64_t)), function GetIntVal, file db_stress_common.h, line 524. ./db_stress --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --max_key_len=3 --max_key=100000000 --skip_verifydb=1 --continuous_verification_interval=0 --writepercent=0 --delpercent=3 --delrangepercent=0 --iterpercent=95 --nooverwritepercent=1 --prefixpercent=0 --readpercent=2 --key_len_percent_dist=1,30,69 --destroy_db_initially=0 ``` Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D39085243 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: a7dfee2320c330773b623b442d730fd014ec7056
2 years ago
}
ColumnFamilyHandle* const cfh = column_families_[rand_column_family];
assert(cfh);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const std::size_t expected_values_size = static_cast<std::size_t>(ub - lb);
std::vector<ExpectedValue> pre_read_expected_values;
std::vector<ExpectedValue> post_read_expected_values;
for (int64_t i = 0; i < static_cast<int64_t>(expected_values_size); ++i) {
pre_read_expected_values.push_back(
shared->Get(rand_column_family, i + lb));
}
std::unique_ptr<Iterator> iter(db_->NewIterator(ro, cfh));
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
for (int64_t i = 0; i < static_cast<int64_t>(expected_values_size); ++i) {
post_read_expected_values.push_back(
shared->Get(rand_column_family, i + lb));
}
assert(pre_read_expected_values.size() == expected_values_size &&
pre_read_expected_values.size() == post_read_expected_values.size());
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
std::string op_logs;
auto check_columns = [&]() {
assert(iter);
assert(iter->Valid());
if (!VerifyWideColumns(iter->value(), iter->columns())) {
shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr,
"Verification failed for key %s: "
"Value and columns inconsistent: value: %s, columns: %s\n",
Slice(iter->key()).ToString(/* hex */ true).c_str(),
iter->value().ToString(/* hex */ true).c_str(),
WideColumnsToHex(iter->columns()).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return false;
}
return true;
};
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
auto check_no_key_in_range = [&](int64_t start, int64_t end) {
for (auto j = std::max(start, lb); j < std::min(end, ub); ++j) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
std::size_t index = static_cast<std::size_t>(j - lb);
assert(index < pre_read_expected_values.size() &&
index < post_read_expected_values.size());
const ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value =
pre_read_expected_values[index];
const ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value =
post_read_expected_values[index];
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value)) {
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// Fail fast to preserve the DB state.
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
if (iter->Valid()) {
fprintf(stderr,
"Expected state has key %s, iterator is at key %s\n",
Slice(Key(j)).ToString(true).c_str(),
iter->key().ToString(true).c_str());
} else {
fprintf(stderr, "Expected state has key %s, iterator is invalid\n",
Slice(Key(j)).ToString(true).c_str());
}
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return false;
}
}
return true;
};
// Forward and backward scan to ensure we cover the entire range [lb, ub).
// The random sequence Next and Prev test below tends to be very short
// ranged.
int64_t last_key = lb - 1;
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
std::string key_str = Key(lb);
iter->Seek(key_str);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
op_logs += "S " + Slice(key_str).ToString(true) + " ";
uint64_t curr = 0;
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
while (true) {
if (!iter->Valid()) {
if (!iter->status().ok()) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr, "TestIterate against expected state error: %s\n",
iter->status().ToString().c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return iter->status();
}
if (!check_no_key_in_range(last_key + 1, ub)) {
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
return Status::OK();
}
break;
}
if (!check_columns()) {
return Status::OK();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// iter is valid, the range (last_key, current key) was skipped
GetIntVal(iter->key().ToString(), &curr);
if (!check_no_key_in_range(last_key + 1, static_cast<int64_t>(curr))) {
return Status::OK();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
last_key = static_cast<int64_t>(curr);
if (last_key >= ub - 1) {
break;
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
iter->Next();
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
op_logs += "N";
}
// backward scan
key_str = Key(ub - 1);
iter->SeekForPrev(key_str);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
op_logs += " SFP " + Slice(key_str).ToString(true) + " ";
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
last_key = ub;
while (true) {
if (!iter->Valid()) {
if (!iter->status().ok()) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr, "TestIterate against expected state error: %s\n",
iter->status().ToString().c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return iter->status();
}
if (!check_no_key_in_range(lb, last_key)) {
return Status::OK();
}
break;
}
if (!check_columns()) {
return Status::OK();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// the range (current key, last key) was skipped
GetIntVal(iter->key().ToString(), &curr);
if (!check_no_key_in_range(static_cast<int64_t>(curr + 1), last_key)) {
return Status::OK();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
last_key = static_cast<int64_t>(curr);
if (last_key <= lb) {
break;
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
iter->Prev();
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
op_logs += "P";
}
if (thread->rand.OneIn(2)) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
pre_read_expected_values.clear();
post_read_expected_values.clear();
// Refresh after forward/backward scan to allow higher chance of SV
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
// change.
for (int64_t i = 0; i < static_cast<int64_t>(expected_values_size); ++i) {
pre_read_expected_values.push_back(
shared->Get(rand_column_family, i + lb));
}
iter->Refresh();
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
for (int64_t i = 0; i < static_cast<int64_t>(expected_values_size); ++i) {
post_read_expected_values.push_back(
shared->Get(rand_column_family, i + lb));
}
assert(pre_read_expected_values.size() == expected_values_size &&
pre_read_expected_values.size() ==
post_read_expected_values.size());
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// start from middle of [lb, ub) otherwise it is easy to iterate out of
// locked range
const int64_t mid = lb + num_iter / 2;
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
key_str = Key(mid);
const Slice key(key_str);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
if (thread->rand.OneIn(2)) {
iter->Seek(key);
op_logs += " S " + key.ToString(true) + " ";
if (!iter->Valid() && iter->status().ok()) {
if (!check_no_key_in_range(mid, ub)) {
return Status::OK();
}
}
} else {
iter->SeekForPrev(key);
op_logs += " SFP " + key.ToString(true) + " ";
if (!iter->Valid() && iter->status().ok()) {
// iterator says nothing <= mid
if (!check_no_key_in_range(lb, mid + 1)) {
return Status::OK();
}
}
}
for (int64_t i = 0; i < num_iter && iter->Valid(); ++i) {
if (!check_columns()) {
return Status::OK();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
GetIntVal(iter->key().ToString(), &curr);
if (static_cast<int64_t>(curr) < lb) {
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
iter->Next();
op_logs += "N";
} else if (static_cast<int64_t>(curr) >= ub) {
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
iter->Prev();
op_logs += "P";
} else {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const uint32_t value_base_from_db = GetValueBase(iter->value());
std::size_t index = static_cast<std::size_t>(curr - lb);
assert(index < pre_read_expected_values.size() &&
index < post_read_expected_values.size());
const ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value =
pre_read_expected_values[index];
const ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value =
post_read_expected_values[index];
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveNotExisted(pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value) ||
!ExpectedValueHelper::InExpectedValueBaseRange(
value_base_from_db, pre_read_expected_value,
post_read_expected_value)) {
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
// Fail fast to preserve the DB state.
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr, "Iterator has key %s, but expected state does not.\n",
iter->key().ToString(true).c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
break;
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
if (thread->rand.OneIn(2)) {
iter->Next();
op_logs += "N";
if (!iter->Valid()) {
break;
}
uint64_t next = 0;
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
GetIntVal(iter->key().ToString(), &next);
if (!check_no_key_in_range(static_cast<int64_t>(curr + 1),
static_cast<int64_t>(next))) {
return Status::OK();
}
} else {
iter->Prev();
op_logs += "P";
if (!iter->Valid()) {
break;
}
uint64_t prev = 0;
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
GetIntVal(iter->key().ToString(), &prev);
if (!check_no_key_in_range(static_cast<int64_t>(prev + 1),
static_cast<int64_t>(curr))) {
return Status::OK();
}
}
}
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
if (!iter->status().ok()) {
thread->shared->SetVerificationFailure();
fprintf(stderr, "TestIterate against expected state error: %s\n",
iter->status().ToString().c_str());
fprintf(stderr, "Column family: %s, op_logs: %s\n",
cfh->GetName().c_str(), op_logs.c_str());
thread->stats.AddErrors(1);
return iter->status();
}
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
thread->stats.AddIterations(1);
Add Iterator test against expected state to stress test (#10538) Summary: As mentioned in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5506#issuecomment-506021913, `db_stress` does not have much verification for iterator correctness. It has a `TestIterate()` function, but that is mainly for comparing results between two iterators, one with `total_order_seek` and the other optionally sets auto_prefix, upper/lower bounds. Commit 49a0581ad2462e31aa3f768afa769e0d33390f33 added a new `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` function that compares iterator against expected state. It locks a range of keys, creates an iterator, does a random sequence of `Next/Prev` and compares against expected state. This PR is based on that commit, the main changes include some logs (for easier debugging if a test fails), a forward and backward scan to cover the entire locked key range, and a flag for optionally turning on this version of Iterator testing. Added constraint that the checks against expected state in `TestIterateAgainstExpected()` and in `TestGet()` are only turned on when `--skip_verifydb` flag is not set. Remove the change log introduced in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10553. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10538 Test Plan: Run `db_stress` with `--verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1`, and a large `--iterpercent` and `--num_iterations`. Checked `op_logs` manually to ensure expected coverage. Tweaked part of the code in https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10449 and stress test was able to catch it. - internally run various flavor of crash test Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D38847269 Pulled By: cbi42 fbshipit-source-id: 8b4402a9bba9f6cfa08051943cd672579d489599
2 years ago
return Status::OK();
}
bool VerifyOrSyncValue(int cf, int64_t key, const ReadOptions& /*opts*/,
SharedState* shared, const std::string& value_from_db,
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
std::string msg_prefix, const Status& s) const {
if (shared->HasVerificationFailedYet()) {
return false;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const ExpectedValue expected_value = shared->Get(cf, key);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
if (expected_value.PendingWrite() || expected_value.PendingDelete()) {
if (s.ok()) {
// Value exists in db, update state to reflect that
Slice slice(value_from_db);
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
uint32_t value_base = GetValueBase(slice);
shared->SyncPut(cf, key, value_base);
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
// Value doesn't exist in db, update state to reflect that
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
shared->SyncDelete(cf, key);
}
return true;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
// compare value_from_db with the value in the shared state
if (s.ok()) {
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
const Slice slice(value_from_db);
const uint32_t value_base_from_db = GetValueBase(slice);
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveNotExisted(expected_value,
expected_value) ||
!ExpectedValueHelper::InExpectedValueBaseRange(
value_base_from_db, expected_value, expected_value)) {
VerificationAbort(shared, msg_prefix + ": Unexpected value found", cf,
key, value_from_db, "");
return false;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
char expected_value_data[kValueMaxLen];
size_t expected_value_data_size =
GenerateValue(expected_value.GetValueBase(), expected_value_data,
sizeof(expected_value_data));
if (value_from_db.length() != expected_value_data_size) {
VerificationAbort(shared,
msg_prefix + ": Length of value read is not equal",
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
cf, key, value_from_db,
Slice(expected_value_data, expected_value_data_size));
return false;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
if (memcmp(value_from_db.data(), expected_value_data,
expected_value_data_size) != 0) {
VerificationAbort(shared,
msg_prefix + ": Contents of value read don't match",
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
cf, key, value_from_db,
Slice(expected_value_data, expected_value_data_size));
return false;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
} else if (s.IsNotFound()) {
if (ExpectedValueHelper::MustHaveExisted(expected_value,
expected_value)) {
char expected_value_data[kValueMaxLen];
size_t expected_value_data_size =
GenerateValue(expected_value.GetValueBase(), expected_value_data,
sizeof(expected_value_data));
VerificationAbort(
shared, msg_prefix + ": Value not found: " + s.ToString(), cf, key,
"", Slice(expected_value_data, expected_value_data_size));
return false;
}
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058) Summary: **Context:** Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage. To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state. **Summary:** Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel. Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted). Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept. (For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR) Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058 Test Plan: - Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min ``` python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000 ``` - Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability) - [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key Reviewed By: ajkr Differential Revision: D42257258 Pulled By: hx235 fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2 years ago
} else {
assert(false);
}
return true;
}
void PrepareTxnDbOptions(SharedState* shared,
TransactionDBOptions& txn_db_opts) override {
txn_db_opts.rollback_deletion_type_callback =
[shared](TransactionDB*, ColumnFamilyHandle*, const Slice& key) {
assert(shared);
uint64_t key_num = 0;
bool ok = GetIntVal(key.ToString(), &key_num);
assert(ok);
(void)ok;
return !shared->AllowsOverwrite(key_num);
};
}
};
StressTest* CreateNonBatchedOpsStressTest() {
return new NonBatchedOpsStressTest();
}
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE
#endif // GFLAGS