Skip to content

perf(blockstore): Add LRU caches to blockstore operations used in consensus (backport #3003)#3083

Merged
melekes merged 4 commits intov0.37.xfrom
mergify/bp/v0.37.x/pr-3003
May 15, 2024
Merged

perf(blockstore): Add LRU caches to blockstore operations used in consensus (backport #3003)#3083
melekes merged 4 commits intov0.37.xfrom
mergify/bp/v0.37.x/pr-3003

Conversation

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented May 15, 2024

Closes #2844

We are seeing that the blockstore loading operations get used in hot loops within gossip routines, and queryMaj23 routines. This PR reduces that overhead using an LRU cache.

The LRU cache does have a mutex on every get, but the time with the LRU cache is 9x faster than without (before even adding in DB overheads), due to the proto unmarshalling saved. We could imagine a setup where we avoided a lock there entirely. I don't think this is worth right now, since the new code is 9x faster, and these mostly appear in catchup code which should not be highly contended for across peers at the same time.

With the new benchmark I added:
OLD:

BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12         24447             54691 ns/op           46495 B/op        319 allocs/op

NEW:

BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12        224131              6401 ns/op            8320 B/op          2 allocs/op

It turns out these gossip routines don't need mutative copies, so we could optimize out the large allocation in the future if we want.

1 hour cpu profile that shows this appearing in prod:
image

The state machine execution time here for context is 92 seconds. So this is adding up in system load (and GC! The GC load is 52GB, the entire trace is 200GB, with other parts being optimized down from recent PRs)


PR checklist

  • Tests written/updated
  • Changelog entry added in .changelog (we use unclog to manage our changelog)
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/ or spec/) and code comments
  • Title follows the Conventional Commits spec

This is an automatic backport of pull request #3003 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

…sensus (#3003)

Closes #2844

We are seeing that the blockstore loading operations get used in hot
loops within gossip routines, and queryMaj23 routines. This PR reduces
that overhead using an LRU cache.

The LRU cache does have a mutex on every get, but the time with the LRU
cache is 9x faster than without (before even adding in DB overheads),
due to the proto unmarshalling saved. We could imagine a setup where we
avoided a lock there entirely. I don't think this is worth right now,
since the new code is 9x faster, and these mostly appear in catchup code
which should not be highly contended for across peers at the same time.

With the new benchmark I added:
OLD:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12         24447             54691 ns/op           46495 B/op        319 allocs/op
```
NEW:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12        224131              6401 ns/op            8320 B/op          2 allocs/op
```

It turns out these gossip routines don't need mutative copies, so we
could optimize out the large allocation in the future if we want.

1 hour cpu profile that shows this appearing in prod:

![image](https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/assets/6440154/5a7e0f02-8385-4c01-aa6a-dba2a2bf376d)

The state machine execution time here for context is 92 seconds. So this
is adding up in system load (and GC! The GC load is 52GB, the entire
trace is 200GB, with other parts being optimized down from recent PRs)

---

#### PR checklist

- [ ] Tests written/updated
- [ ] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use
[unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our
changelog)
- [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code
comments
- [ ] Title follows the [Conventional
Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec

---------

Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@informal.systems>
(cherry picked from commit 46e2484)

# Conflicts:
#	.golangci.yml
#	go.mod
#	go.sum
#	store/store.go
#	store/store_test.go
#	types/block.go
@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 15, 2024 05:45
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented May 15, 2024

Cherry-pick of 46e2484 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/v0.37.x/pr-3003
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/v0.37.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 46e24848f.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	new file:   .changelog/unreleased/improvements/3003-use-lru-caches-in-blockstore.md
	new file:   store/bench_test.go

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   .golangci.yml
	both modified:   go.mod
	both modified:   go.sum
	both modified:   store/store.go
	both modified:   store/store_test.go
	both modified:   types/block.go

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label May 15, 2024
@melekes melekes merged commit 8a0f481 into v0.37.x May 15, 2024
@melekes melekes deleted the mergify/bp/v0.37.x/pr-3003 branch May 15, 2024 09:26
ValarDragon added a commit to osmosis-labs/cometbft that referenced this pull request May 25, 2024
…sensus (backport cometbft#3003) (cometbft#3083)

Closes cometbft#2844

We are seeing that the blockstore loading operations get used in hot
loops within gossip routines, and queryMaj23 routines. This PR reduces
that overhead using an LRU cache.

The LRU cache does have a mutex on every get, but the time with the LRU
cache is 9x faster than without (before even adding in DB overheads),
due to the proto unmarshalling saved. We could imagine a setup where we
avoided a lock there entirely. I don't think this is worth right now,
since the new code is 9x faster, and these mostly appear in catchup code
which should not be highly contended for across peers at the same time.

With the new benchmark I added:
OLD:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12         24447             54691 ns/op           46495 B/op        319 allocs/op
```
NEW:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12        224131              6401 ns/op            8320 B/op          2 allocs/op
```

It turns out these gossip routines don't need mutative copies, so we
could optimize out the large allocation in the future if we want.

1 hour cpu profile that shows this appearing in prod:

![image](https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/assets/6440154/5a7e0f02-8385-4c01-aa6a-dba2a2bf376d)

The state machine execution time here for context is 92 seconds. So this
is adding up in system load (and GC! The GC load is 52GB, the entire
trace is 200GB, with other parts being optimized down from recent PRs)

---

- [ ] Tests written/updated
- [ ] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use
[unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our
changelog)
- [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code
comments
- [ ] Title follows the [Conventional
Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec
<hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request cometbft#3003 done by
[Mergify](https://mergify.com).

---------

Co-authored-by: Dev Ojha <ValarDragon@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
mergify bot added a commit to osmosis-labs/cometbft that referenced this pull request May 28, 2024
…sensus (backport cometbft#3003) (cometbft#3083)

Closes cometbft#2844

We are seeing that the blockstore loading operations get used in hot
loops within gossip routines, and queryMaj23 routines. This PR reduces
that overhead using an LRU cache.

The LRU cache does have a mutex on every get, but the time with the LRU
cache is 9x faster than without (before even adding in DB overheads),
due to the proto unmarshalling saved. We could imagine a setup where we
avoided a lock there entirely. I don't think this is worth right now,
since the new code is 9x faster, and these mostly appear in catchup code
which should not be highly contended for across peers at the same time.

With the new benchmark I added:
OLD:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12         24447             54691 ns/op           46495 B/op        319 allocs/op
```
NEW:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12        224131              6401 ns/op            8320 B/op          2 allocs/op
```

It turns out these gossip routines don't need mutative copies, so we
could optimize out the large allocation in the future if we want.

1 hour cpu profile that shows this appearing in prod:

![image](https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/assets/6440154/5a7e0f02-8385-4c01-aa6a-dba2a2bf376d)

The state machine execution time here for context is 92 seconds. So this
is adding up in system load (and GC! The GC load is 52GB, the entire
trace is 200GB, with other parts being optimized down from recent PRs)

---

- [ ] Tests written/updated
- [ ] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use
[unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our
changelog)
- [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code
comments
- [ ] Title follows the [Conventional
Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec
<hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request cometbft#3003 done by
[Mergify](https://mergify.com).

---------

Co-authored-by: Dev Ojha <ValarDragon@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 0c10bd5)
PaddyMc added a commit to osmosis-labs/cometbft that referenced this pull request May 28, 2024
…… (backport #76) (#81)

* perf(blockstore): Add LRU caches to blockstore operations used in consensus (backport cometbft#3003) (cometbft#3083)

Closes cometbft#2844

We are seeing that the blockstore loading operations get used in hot
loops within gossip routines, and queryMaj23 routines. This PR reduces
that overhead using an LRU cache.

The LRU cache does have a mutex on every get, but the time with the LRU
cache is 9x faster than without (before even adding in DB overheads),
due to the proto unmarshalling saved. We could imagine a setup where we
avoided a lock there entirely. I don't think this is worth right now,
since the new code is 9x faster, and these mostly appear in catchup code
which should not be highly contended for across peers at the same time.

With the new benchmark I added:
OLD:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12         24447             54691 ns/op           46495 B/op        319 allocs/op
```
NEW:
```
BenchmarkRepeatedLoadSeenCommit-12        224131              6401 ns/op            8320 B/op          2 allocs/op
```

It turns out these gossip routines don't need mutative copies, so we
could optimize out the large allocation in the future if we want.

1 hour cpu profile that shows this appearing in prod:

![image](https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/assets/6440154/5a7e0f02-8385-4c01-aa6a-dba2a2bf376d)

The state machine execution time here for context is 92 seconds. So this
is adding up in system load (and GC! The GC load is 52GB, the entire
trace is 200GB, with other parts being optimized down from recent PRs)

---

- [ ] Tests written/updated
- [ ] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use
[unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our
changelog)
- [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code
comments
- [ ] Title follows the [Conventional
Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec
<hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request cometbft#3003 done by
[Mergify](https://mergify.com).

---------

Co-authored-by: Dev Ojha <ValarDragon@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 0c10bd5)

* Add Changelog

(cherry picked from commit 4594f29)

# Conflicts:
#	CHANGELOG.md

---------

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dev Ojha <dojha@berkeley.edu>
Co-authored-by: PaddyMc <paddymchale@hotmail.com>
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.

3 participants