New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support lowering CPU priority of background threads #3763
Conversation
2cd9624
to
e8cff76
Compare
@gwicke has updated the pull request. |
Summary: Background activities like compaction can negatively affect latency of higher-priority tasks like request processing. To avoid this, rocksdb already lowers the IO priority of background threads on Linux systems. While this takes care of typical IO-bound systems, it does not help much when CPU (temporarily) becomes the bottleneck. This is especially likely when using more expensive compression settings. This patch adds an API to allow for lowering the CPU priority of background threads, modeled on the IO priority API. Benchmarks (see below) show significant latency and throughput improvements when CPU bound. As a result, workloads with some CPU usage bursts should benefit from lower latencies at a given utilization, or should be able to push utilization higher at a given request latency target. A useful side effect is that compaction CPU usage is now easily visible in common tools, allowing for an easier estimation of the contribution of compaction vs. request processing threads. As with IO priority, the implementation is limited to Linux, degrading to a no-op on other systems. Test Plan: `make check -j64` = Benchmark: CPU bound, with & without background CPU priorities = Results: Best P99 of 10 runs each. tl;dr: Mean latency -70-80%, P50 +18-22%, P99 -93-94% Basic zstd compression: ```bash ./db_bench --compression_type=zstd --key_size 24 \ --max_background_jobs 16 --benchmarks readwhilewriting --num 3000000 \ --writes 300000 --threads 48 --histogram=1 --stats_interval=100000000 \ --enable_io_prio``` Count: 192000000 Average: 32.3246 StdDev: 19.51 Percentiles: P50: 1.41 P75: 5.27 P99: 144.77 P99.9: 6835.64 P99.99: 24890.69 Basic zstd compression, low cpu priority: ```bash ./db_bench --compression_type=zstd --key_size 24 \ --max_background_jobs 16 --benchmarks readwhilewriting --num 3000000 \ --writes 300000 --threads 48 --histogram=1 --stats_interval=100000000 \ --enable_io_prio --enable_cpu_prio``` Count: 192000000 Average: 6.5144 StdDev: 12.78 Percentiles: P50: 1.67 P75: 3.30 P99: 8.98 P99.9: 30.08 P99.99: 23877.45 Change vs. no CPU prio: Average -79.8%, P50 +18.4% , P99 -93.8% Aggressive zstd compression: ```bash ./db_bench --compression_type=zstd --key_size 24 --max_background_jobs 16 --benchmarks readwhilewriting --num 3000000 --writes 300000 --threads 64 --histogram=1 --stats_interval=100000000 --enable_io_prio --compression_level=6 --compression_max_dict_bytes=8 --compression_zstd_max_train_bytes=13``` Count: 192000000 Average: 19.0564 StdDev: 18.53 Percentiles: P50: 1.37 P75: 2.92 P99: 129.14 P99.9: 526.23 P99.99: 20604.76 Aggressive zstd compression, low cpu priority: ```bash ./db_bench --compression_type=zstd --key_size 24 --max_background_jobs 16 --benchmarks readwhilewriting --num 3000000 --writes 300000 --threads 64 --histogram=1 --stats_interval=100000000 --enable_io_prio --compression_level=6 --compression_max_dict_bytes=8 --compression_zstd_max_train_bytes=13 --enable_cpu_prio``` Count: 192000000 Average: 6.1065 StdDev: 18.61 Percentiles: P50: 1.65 P75: 3.27 P99: 9.02 P99.9: 31.65 P99.99: 17240.06 Change vs. no CPU prio: Average -70.0%, P50 +21.9%, P99 -93.0% Full benchmark log: https://gist.github.com/gwicke/3286cc87f09c81052d33e08a9d3d1cec
e8cff76
to
9236ba4
Compare
@gwicke has updated the pull request. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm!
Summary: Per subject. In a separate patch to allow for easier review. Test Plan: Check diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@gwicke has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.
Summary: Background activities like compaction can negatively affect latency of higher-priority tasks like request processing. To avoid this, rocksdb already lowers the IO priority of background threads on Linux systems. While this takes care of typical IO-bound systems, it does not help much when CPU (temporarily) becomes the bottleneck. This is especially likely when using more expensive compression settings. This patch adds an API to allow for lowering the CPU priority of background threads, modeled on the IO priority API. Benchmarks (see below) show significant latency and throughput improvements when CPU bound. As a result, workloads with some CPU usage bursts should benefit from lower latencies at a given utilization, or should be able to push utilization higher at a given request latency target. A useful side effect is that compaction CPU usage is now easily visible in common tools, allowing for an easier estimation of the contribution of compaction vs. request processing threads. As with IO priority, the implementation is limited to Linux, degrading to a no-op on other systems. Closes facebook#3763 Differential Revision: D7740096 Pulled By: gwicke fbshipit-source-id: e5d32373e8dc403a7b0c2227023f9ce4f22b413c
Summary: Background activities like compaction can negatively affect latency of higher-priority tasks like request processing. To avoid this, rocksdb already lowers the IO priority of background threads on Linux systems. While this takes care of typical IO-bound systems, it does not help much when CPU (temporarily) becomes the bottleneck. This is especially likely when using more expensive compression settings. This patch adds an API to allow for lowering the CPU priority of background threads, modeled on the IO priority API. Benchmarks (see below) show significant latency and throughput improvements when CPU bound. As a result, workloads with some CPU usage bursts should benefit from lower latencies at a given utilization, or should be able to push utilization higher at a given request latency target. A useful side effect is that compaction CPU usage is now easily visible in common tools, allowing for an easier estimation of the contribution of compaction vs. request processing threads. As with IO priority, the implementation is limited to Linux, degrading to a no-op on other systems. Closes facebook#3763 Differential Revision: D7740096 Pulled By: gwicke fbshipit-source-id: e5d32373e8dc403a7b0c2227023f9ce4f22b413c
Summary: Background activities like compaction can negatively affect
latency of higher-priority tasks like request processing. To avoid this,
rocksdb already lowers the IO priority of background threads on Linux
systems. While this takes care of typical IO-bound systems, it does not
help much when CPU (temporarily) becomes the bottleneck. This is
especially likely when using more expensive compression settings.
This patch adds an API to allow for lowering the CPU priority of
background threads, modeled on the IO priority API. Benchmarks (see
below) show significant latency and throughput improvements when CPU
bound. As a result, workloads with some CPU usage bursts should benefit
from lower latencies at a given utilization, or should be able to push
utilization higher at a given request latency target.
A useful side effect is that compaction CPU usage is now easily visible
in common tools, allowing for an easier estimation of the contribution
of compaction vs. request processing threads.
As with IO priority, the implementation is limited to Linux, degrading
to a no-op on other systems.
Test Plan:
make check -j64
Benchmark: CPU bound, with & without background CPU priorities
Results: Best P99 of 10 runs each.
tl;dr: Mean latency -70-80%, P50 +18-22%, P99 -93-94%
Basic zstd compression:
Count: 192000000 Average: 32.3246 StdDev: 19.51
Percentiles: P50: 1.41 P75: 5.27 P99: 144.77 P99.9: 6835.64 P99.99: 24890.69
Basic zstd compression, low cpu priority:
Count: 192000000 Average: 6.5144 StdDev: 12.78
Percentiles: P50: 1.67 P75: 3.30 P99: 8.98 P99.9: 30.08 P99.99: 23877.45
Change vs. no CPU prio: Average -79.8%, P50 +18.4% , P99 -93.8%
Aggressive zstd compression:
Count: 192000000 Average: 19.0564 StdDev: 18.53
Percentiles: P50: 1.37 P75: 2.92 P99: 129.14 P99.9: 526.23 P99.99: 20604.76
Aggressive zstd compression, low cpu priority:
Count: 192000000 Average: 6.1065 StdDev: 18.61
Percentiles: P50: 1.65 P75: 3.27 P99: 9.02 P99.9: 31.65 P99.99: 17240.06
Change vs. no CPU prio: Average -70.0%, P50 +21.9%, P99 -93.0%
Full benchmark log: https://gist.github.com/gwicke/3286cc87f09c81052d33e08a9d3d1cec