|
|
|
|
// 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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "dynamic_bloom.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <algorithm>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "memory/allocator.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "port/port.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/slice.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "util/hash.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace rocksdb {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
uint32_t roundUpToPow2(uint32_t x) {
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t rv = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
while (rv < x) {
|
|
|
|
|
rv <<= 1;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
return rv;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DynamicBloom::DynamicBloom(Allocator* allocator, uint32_t total_bits,
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t num_probes, size_t huge_page_tlb_size,
|
|
|
|
|
Logger* logger)
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
// Round down, except round up with 1
|
|
|
|
|
: kNumDoubleProbes((num_probes + (num_probes == 1)) / 2) {
|
|
|
|
|
assert(num_probes % 2 == 0); // limitation of current implementation
|
|
|
|
|
assert(num_probes <= 10); // limitation of current implementation
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
assert(kNumDoubleProbes > 0);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
// Determine how much to round off + align by so that x ^ i (that's xor) is
|
|
|
|
|
// a valid u64 index if x is a valid u64 index and 0 <= i < kNumDoubleProbes.
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t block_bytes = /*bytes/u64*/ 8 *
|
|
|
|
|
/*u64s*/ std::max(1U, roundUpToPow2(kNumDoubleProbes));
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t block_bits = block_bytes * 8;
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t blocks = (total_bits + block_bits - 1) / block_bits;
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t sz = blocks * block_bytes;
|
|
|
|
|
kLen = sz / /*bytes/u64*/ 8;
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
assert(kLen > 0);
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef NDEBUG
|
|
|
|
|
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < kNumDoubleProbes; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Ensure probes starting at last word are in range
|
|
|
|
|
assert(((kLen - 1) ^ i) < kLen);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
// Padding to correct for allocation not originally aligned on block_bytes
|
|
|
|
|
// boundary
|
|
|
|
|
sz += block_bytes - 1;
|
|
|
|
|
assert(allocator);
|
support for concurrent adds to memtable
Summary:
This diff adds support for concurrent adds to the skiplist memtable
implementations. Memory allocation is made thread-safe by the addition of
a spinlock, with small per-core buffers to avoid contention. Concurrent
memtable writes are made via an additional method and don't impose a
performance overhead on the non-concurrent case, so parallelism can be
selected on a per-batch basis.
Write thread synchronization is an increasing bottleneck for higher levels
of concurrency, so this diff adds --enable_write_thread_adaptive_yield
(default off). This feature causes threads joining a write batch
group to spin for a short time (default 100 usec) using sched_yield,
rather than going to sleep on a mutex. If the timing of the yield calls
indicates that another thread has actually run during the yield then
spinning is avoided. This option improves performance for concurrent
situations even without parallel adds, although it has the potential to
increase CPU usage (and the heuristic adaptation is not yet mature).
Parallel writes are not currently compatible with
inplace updates, update callbacks, or delete filtering.
Enable it with --allow_concurrent_memtable_write (and
--enable_write_thread_adaptive_yield). Parallel memtable writes
are performance neutral when there is no actual parallelism, and in
my experiments (SSD server-class Linux and varying contention and key
sizes for fillrandom) they are always a performance win when there is
more than one thread.
Statistics are updated earlier in the write path, dropping the number
of DB mutex acquisitions from 2 to 1 for almost all cases.
This diff was motivated and inspired by Yahoo's cLSM work. It is more
conservative than cLSM: RocksDB's write batch group leader role is
preserved (along with all of the existing flush and write throttling
logic) and concurrent writers are blocked until all memtable insertions
have completed and the sequence number has been advanced, to preserve
linearizability.
My test config is "db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -threads=$T
-batch_size=1 -memtablerep=skip_list -value_size=100 --num=1000000/$T
-level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=9999 -level0_stop_writes_trigger=9999
-disable_auto_compactions --max_write_buffer_number=8
-max_background_flushes=8 --disable_wal --write_buffer_size=160000000
--block_size=16384 --allow_concurrent_memtable_write" on a two-socket
Xeon E5-2660 @ 2.2Ghz with lots of memory and an SSD hard drive. With 1
thread I get ~440Kops/sec. Peak performance for 1 socket (numactl
-N1) is slightly more than 1Mops/sec, at 16 threads. Peak performance
across both sockets happens at 30 threads, and is ~900Kops/sec, although
with fewer threads there is less performance loss when the system has
background work.
Test Plan:
1. concurrent stress tests for InlineSkipList and DynamicBloom
2. make clean; make check
3. make clean; DISABLE_JEMALLOC=1 make valgrind_check; valgrind db_bench
4. make clean; COMPILE_WITH_TSAN=1 make all check; db_bench
5. make clean; COMPILE_WITH_ASAN=1 make all check; db_bench
6. make clean; OPT=-DROCKSDB_LITE make check
7. verify no perf regressions when disabled
Reviewers: igor, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: MarkCallaghan, IslamAbdelRahman, anthony, yhchiang, rven, sdong, guyg8, kradhakrishnan, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D50589
10 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
char* raw = allocator->AllocateAligned(sz, huge_page_tlb_size, logger);
|
|
|
|
|
memset(raw, 0, sz);
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
auto block_offset = reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t>(raw) % block_bytes;
|
|
|
|
|
if (block_offset > 0) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Align on block_bytes boundary
|
|
|
|
|
raw += block_bytes - block_offset;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Faster new DynamicBloom implementation (for memtable) (#5762)
Summary:
Since DynamicBloom is now only used in-memory, we're free to
change it without schema compatibility issues. The new implementation
is drawn from (with manifest permission)
https://github.com/pdillinger/wormhashing/blob/303542a767437f56d8b66cea6ebecaac0e6a61e9/bloom_simulation_tests/foo.cc#L613
This has several speed advantages over the prior implementation:
* Uses fastrange instead of %
* Minimum logic to determine first (and all) probed memory addresses
* (Major) Two probes per 64-bit memory fetch/write.
* Very fast and effective (murmur-like) hash expansion/re-mixing. (At
least on recent CPUs, integer multiplication is very cheap.)
While a Bloom filter with 512-bit cache locality has about a 1.15x FP
rate penalty (e.g. 0.84% to 0.97%), further restricting to two probes
per 64 bits incurs an additional 1.12x FP rate penalty (e.g. 0.97% to
1.09%). Nevertheless, the unit tests show no "mediocre" FP rate samples,
unlike the old implementation with more erratic FP rates.
Especially for the memtable, we expect speed to outweigh somewhat higher
FP rates. For example, a negative table query would have to be 1000x
slower than a BF query to justify doubling BF query time to shave 10% off
FP rate (working assumption around 1% FP rate). While that seems likely
for SSTs, my data suggests a speed factor of roughly 50x for the memtable
(vs. BF; ~1.5% lower write throughput when enabling memtable Bloom
filter, after this change). Thus, it's probably not worth even 5% more
time in the Bloom filter to shave off 1/10th of the Bloom FP rate, or 0.1%
in absolute terms, and it's probably at least 20% slower to recoup that
much FP rate from this new implementation. Because of this, we do not see
a need for a 'locality' option that affects the MemTable Bloom filter
and have decoupled the MemTable Bloom filter from Options::bloom_locality.
Note that just 3% more memory to the Bloom filter (10.3 bits per key vs.
just 10) is able to make up for the ~12% FP rate drop in the new
implementation:
[] # Nearly "ideal" FP-wise but reasonably fast cache-local implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_WORM64_FROM32_any.out time: 3.29372 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985956 ...
[] # Close match to this new implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out 10000000 6 10.3 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.10072 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00985655 ...
[] # Old locality=1 implementation
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out 10000000 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_ROCKSDB_DYNAMIC_any.out time: 3.95472 sampled_fp_rate: 0.00988943 ...
Also note the dramatic speed improvement vs. alternatives.
--
Performance unit test: DynamicBloomTest.concurrent_with_perf is updated
to report more precise timing data. (Measure running time of each
thread, not just longest running thread, etc.) Results averaged over
various sizes enabled with --enable_perf and 20 runs each; old dynamic
bloom refers to locality=1, the faster of the old:
old dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 65.6468
new dynamic bloom, avg add latency = 44.3809
old dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 50.6485
new dynamic bloom, avg query latency = 43.2186
old avg parallel add latency = 41.678
new avg parallel add latency = 24.5238
old avg parallel hit latency = 14.6322
new avg parallel hit latency = 12.3939
old avg parallel miss latency = 16.7289
new avg parallel miss latency = 12.2134
Tested on a dedicated 64-bit production machine at Facebook. Significant
improvement all around.
Despite now using std::atomic<uint64_t>, quick before-and-after test on
a 32-bit machine (Intel Atom N270, released 2008) shows no regression in
performance, in some cases modest improvement.
--
Performance integration test (synthetic): with DEBUG_LEVEL=0, used
TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom,readmissing,readrandom,stats --num=2000000
and optionally with -memtable_whole_key_filtering -memtable_bloom_size_ratio=0.01
300 runs each configuration.
Write throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: -3.06%
Old locality=1: -2.37%
New: -1.50%
conclusion -> seems to substantially close the gap
Readmissing throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +34.47%
Old locality=1: +34.80%
New: +33.25%
conclusion -> maybe a small new penalty from FP rate
Readrandom throughput change by enabling memtable bloom:
Old locality=0: +31.54%
Old locality=1: +31.13%
New: +30.60%
conclusion -> maybe also from FP rate (after memtable flush)
--
Another conclusion we can draw from this new implementation is that the
existing 32-bit hash function is not inherently crippling the Bloom
filter speed or accuracy, below about 5 million keys. For speed, the
implementation is essentially the same whether starting with 32-bits or
64-bits of hash; it just determines whether the first multiplication
after fastrange is a pseudorandom expansion or needed re-mix. Note that
this multiplication can occur while memory is fetching.
For accuracy, in a standard configuration, you need about 5 million
keys before you have about a 1.1x FP penalty due to using a
32-bit hash vs. 64-bit:
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_FROM32_any.out time: 2.52069 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0118267 ...
[~/wormhashing/bloom_simulation_tests] ./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out $((5 * 1000 * 1000 * 10)) 6 10 $RANDOM 100000000
./foo_gcc_IMPL_CACHE_MUL64_BLOCK_any.out time: 2.43871 sampled_fp_rate: 0.0109059
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5762
Differential Revision: D17214194
Pulled By: pdillinger
fbshipit-source-id: ad9da031772e985fd6b62a0e1db8e81892520595
5 years ago
|
|
|
static_assert(sizeof(std::atomic<uint64_t>) == sizeof(uint64_t),
|
|
|
|
|
"Expecting zero-space-overhead atomic");
|
|
|
|
|
data_ = reinterpret_cast<std::atomic<uint64_t>*>(raw);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // rocksdb
|
