Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
HBASE-26018 Perf improvement in L1 cache - Optimistic call to buffer.retain() - #3407
Closed
virajjasani wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
HBASE-26018 Perf improvement in L1 cache - Optimistic call to buffer.retain()#3407virajjasani wants to merge 1 commit into
virajjasani wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
virajjasani
commented
Jun 21, 2021
ContributorAuthor
FYI @ben-manes |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache-HBase
commented
Jun 21, 2021
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
| LruCachedBlock cb = map.get(cacheKey); | ||
| if (cb != null) { | ||
| try { | ||
| cb.getBuffer().retain(); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And if it is purge from cache by a background thread, we'll have a cb w/ a non-zero refcount that is not in the cache? Will that work?
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is purged from cache by:
protected long evictBlock(LruCachedBlock block, boolean evictedByEvictionProcess) {
LruCachedBlock previous = map.remove(block.getCacheKey()); =======> removed from map
if (previous == null) {
return 0;
}
updateSizeMetrics(block, true);
long val = elements.decrementAndGet();
if (LOG.isTraceEnabled()) {
long size = map.size();
assertCounterSanity(size, val);
}
if (block.getBuffer().getBlockType().isData()) {
dataBlockElements.decrement();
}
if (evictedByEvictionProcess) {
// When the eviction of the block happened because of invalidation of HFiles, no need to
// update the stats counter.
stats.evicted(block.getCachedTime(), block.getCacheKey().isPrimary());
if (victimHandler != null) {
victimHandler.cacheBlock(block.getCacheKey(), block.getBuffer());
}
}
// Decrease the block's reference count, and if refCount is 0, then it'll auto-deallocate. DO
// NOT move this up because if do that then the victimHandler may access the buffer with
// refCnt = 0 which is disallowed.
previous.getBuffer().release(); ============================> buffer released
return block.heapSize();
}
Based on above mentioned eviction code, we have below mentioned possibilities when eviction and getBlock happens for the same block at the same time:
- getBlock retrieves block from map, eviction removes it from map, eviction does release(), getBlock does retain() and encounters IllegalRefCount Exception, we handler it with this patch and treat it as cache miss.
- getBlock retrieves block from map, eviction removes it from map, getBlock does retain(), eviction does release(). Since getBlock retain() was successful, it proceeds as successful cache hit, which happens even today with computeIfPresent. Subsequent getBlock call will return null as block was evicted previously.
- eviction removes from map, getBlock gets null, it's clear cache miss.
I think we seem good here. WDYT @saintstack?
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think for possibility#2 in above, we stand a chance where buffer with non-zero refCount is not in the cache. I see, let me see what alternatives we have for this case.
Although I still think that same case can happen even today.
getBlock does retain() which will bring refCount of BB to 2, while getBlock is busy updating stats, eviction thread can evict block from cache and it does release() which will bring refCount of BB to 1. So even in this case, we can positive refCount buffer which is evicted from cache.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#1 sounds good.
#2 yeah, it can get interesting. The computeIfPresent made reasoning easier for sure.
Running w/ #get instead of #computeIfPresent -- even though it incorrect -- changed the locking profile of a loaded process; before the change, the blockage in computeIfPresent was the biggest blockage. After, biggest locking consumer was elsewhere and much more insignificant percentage
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @saintstack.
After, biggest locking consumer was elsewhere and much more insignificant percentage
Does this mean we can kind of ignore this case (assuming objects not in cache will get GC'ed regardless of their netty based refCount)? Still thinking about this.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@virajjasani Thats an interesting idea. Whether onheap or offheap, if no references -- i.e. not tied to a pool -- then they should get GC'd. Does the CB get returned to the cache when done?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at this more.... I don't think we can do your trick afterall.
The refcounting is not for the cache, it is for a backing pool of memory used reading data in from hdfs into the cache. When we evict a block from the cache, we call #release on the memory. If the refcount is zero, the memory is released and can be reused in the backing pool. If #release is called and the #refcount is not zero, we just decrement the refcount.
A cached buffer item detached from the cache still needs to have its #release called w/ refcount at zero so the backing memory gets readded to the pool.
So it seems to me. What you think @virajjasani
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the CB get returned to the cache when done?
You mean if CB gets returned to L1 cache (CHM) after it's buffer has served read request? Yes, that's the case (unless I misunderstood the question)
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Sorry, forgot to submit my comment from a good while ago)
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A cached buffer item detached from the cache still needs to have its #release called w/ refcount at zero so the backing memory gets readded to the pool.
Yeah I think this makes sense. Let me get back to this in case I find some better and obvious way to improve perf and get some YCSB results.
apurtell
commented
Jul 19, 2021
Contributor
@virajjasani In what context? What test case? What does "bit expensive" mean? Can we see the data? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.