Skip to content

kv: introduce new "max outstanding size" setting to txnPipeliner#35014

Merged
craig[bot] merged 1 commit intocockroachdb:masterfrom
nvb:nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes
Feb 26, 2019
Merged

kv: introduce new "max outstanding size" setting to txnPipeliner#35014
craig[bot] merged 1 commit intocockroachdb:masterfrom
nvb:nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes

Conversation

@nvb
Copy link
Contributor

@nvb nvb commented Feb 15, 2019

Fixes #32522.

This change creates a new cluster setting called:

kv.transaction.write_pipelining_max_outstanding_size

It limits the size in bytes that can be dedicated to tracking in-flight
writes that have been pipelined. Once this limit is hit, not more writes
will be pipelined by a transaction until some of the writes are proven
and removed from the outstanding write set.

This change once again illustrates the need for periodic proving of
outstanding writes. We touch upon that in the type definition's comment
and in #35009.

Release note: None

@nvb nvb requested review from a team and andreimatei February 15, 2019 22:57
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Member

@tbg tbg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @andreimatei and @nvanbenschoten)


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 533 at r1 (raw file):

	}
	tp.owSizeBytes -= int64(len(key))
}

Is there a convenient places for an assertion somewhere? The silly example I can think of is EndTransaction where Key is set kind of late, though that isn't something the pipeliner would track.

Copy link
Contributor

@andreimatei andreimatei left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @nvanbenschoten)


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 36 at r1 (raw file):

)
var pipelinedWritesMaxOutstandingSize = settings.RegisterIntSetting(
	// TODO(nvanbenschoten): The need for this extra setting alongside

I'd say the existence of this setting indicates the need for background proving of intents, not necessarily anything to do with the other setting... no?


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 152 at r1 (raw file):

	outstandingWrites *btree.BTree
	owSizeBytes       int64

pls comment the field


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 212 at r1 (raw file):

	asyncConsensus := pipelinedWritesEnabled.Get(&tp.st.SV) && !tp.disabled

	// We provide a setting to bound the size of outstanding writes that the

why declare these variable with such a broad scope? They're only needed in a deeply nested place.

@nvb nvb force-pushed the nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes branch from 65a8fff to 1c667ff Compare February 25, 2019 20:45
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nvb nvb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @andreimatei and @tbg)


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 36 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

I'd say the existence of this setting indicates the need for background proving of intents, not necessarily anything to do with the other setting... no?

Probably both, but the point I'm making here is that the need to bound the memory footprint of two separate in-memory structures that track very similar things demonstrates a clear area for simplification.


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 152 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

pls comment the field

Done.


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 212 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

why declare these variable with such a broad scope? They're only needed in a deeply nested place.

We modify owSizeBytes in each iteration though, and I don't want the atomic access in the loop.


pkg/kv/txn_interceptor_pipeliner.go, line 533 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, tbg (Tobias Grieger) wrote…

Is there a convenient places for an assertion somewhere? The silly example I can think of is EndTransaction where Key is set kind of late, though that isn't something the pipeliner would track.

Done.

@nvb nvb force-pushed the nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes branch from 1c667ff to d9f370b Compare February 26, 2019 05:58
Fixes cockroachdb#32522.

This change creates a new cluster setting called:
```
kv.transaction.write_pipelining_max_outstanding_size
```

It limits the size in bytes that can be dedicated to tracking in-flight
writes that have been pipelined. Once this limit is hit, not more writes
will be pipelined by a transaction until some of the writes are proven
and removed from the outstanding write set.

This change once again illustrates the need for periodic proving of
outstanding writes. We touch upon that in the type definition's comment
and in cockroachdb#35009.

Release note: None
@nvb nvb force-pushed the nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes branch from d9f370b to 0dc8b84 Compare February 26, 2019 06:24
@nvb
Copy link
Contributor Author

nvb commented Feb 26, 2019

bors r+

craig bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2019
35014: kv: introduce new "max outstanding size" setting to txnPipeliner r=nvanbenschoten a=nvanbenschoten

Fixes #32522.

This change creates a new cluster setting called:
```
kv.transaction.write_pipelining_max_outstanding_size
```

It limits the size in bytes that can be dedicated to tracking in-flight
writes that have been pipelined. Once this limit is hit, not more writes
will be pipelined by a transaction until some of the writes are proven
and removed from the outstanding write set.

This change once again illustrates the need for periodic proving of
outstanding writes. We touch upon that in the type definition's comment
and in #35009.

Release note: None

35199: log: fix remaining misuse of runtime.Callers/runtime.FuncForPC r=nvanbenschoten a=nvanbenschoten

Fixes #17770.

This commit fixes the last user of `runtime.Callers` that misused
the stdlib function by translating the PC values it returned directly
into symbolic information (see https://golang.org/pkg/runtime/#Callers) [1].
Go's documentation warns that this is a recipe for disaster when mixed
with mid-stack inlining.

The other concern in #17770 was this comment: #17770 (comment).
This was discussed in golang/go#29582 and addressed in golang/go@956879d.

An alternative would be to use `runtime.Caller` here, but that would
force an allocation that was hard-earned in #29017. Instead, this commit
avoids any performance hit.

```
name                 old time/op    new time/op    delta
Header-4                267ns ± 1%     268ns ± 0%    ~     (p=0.584 n=10+10)
VDepthWithVModule-4     260ns ± 3%     255ns ± 1%  -1.87%  (p=0.018 n=10+9)

name                 old alloc/op   new alloc/op   delta
Header-4                0.00B          0.00B         ~     (all equal)
VDepthWithVModule-4     0.00B          0.00B         ~     (all equal)

name                 old allocs/op  new allocs/op  delta
Header-4                 0.00           0.00         ~     (all equal)
VDepthWithVModule-4      0.00           0.00         ~     (all equal)
```

[1] I went through and verified that this was still correct.

Release note: None

35203: closedts: react faster to config changes r=danhhz a=tbg

This approximately halves the duration of

`make test PKG=./pkg/ccl/changefeedccl TESTS=/sinkless`,

from ~60s to ~30s.

Touches #34455.

Release note: None

Co-authored-by: Nathan VanBenschoten <nvanbenschoten@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Tobias Schottdorf <tobias.schottdorf@gmail.com>
@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Feb 26, 2019

Build succeeded

@craig craig bot merged commit 0dc8b84 into cockroachdb:master Feb 26, 2019
@nvb nvb deleted the nvanbenschoten/maxOutstandingBytes branch February 26, 2019 19:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants