Skip to content
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

follow up on ways to reduce allocation on multi_get #45

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

danmayer
Copy link

@danmayer danmayer commented Feb 14, 2025

Ok, this is a bit silly, but after our conversation I was curious how much we could reduce allocations in the get multi tight loop... This does reduce allocations which is nice, but the overall benchmark doesn't show much of a difference... Still kind of fun to poke around at, and it might be nice to add a check to CI that ensures we keep pushing allocations down for our commands.

allocations before: 1944
allocations after: 1659

benchmark before:

❯❯❯$ BENCH_TARGET=get_multi RUBY_YJIT_ENABLE=1 bundle exec bin/benchmark  
  yjit: true  
  ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23]  
  Warming up --------------------------------------  
          get 100 keys    68.000 i/100ms  
  get 100 keys raw sock  
                          84.000 i/100ms  
  Calculating -------------------------------------  
          get 100 keys    581.042 (±13.3%) i/s    (1.72 ms/i) -      5.780k in  10.118846s  
  get 100 keys raw sock  
                          685.477 (±18.5%) i/s    (1.46 ms/i) -      6.636k in  10.014161s  
  Comparison:  
  get 100 keys raw sock:      685.5 i/s  
          get 100 keys:      581.0 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error

benchmark after:

❯❯❯$ BENCH_TARGET=get_multi RUBY_YJIT_ENABLE=1 bundle exec bin/benchmark 
yjit: true
ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23]
Warming up --------------------------------------
        get 100 keys    67.000 i/100ms
get 100 keys raw sock
                        89.000 i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
        get 100 keys    633.133 (±14.2%) i/s    (1.58 ms/i) -      6.164k in  10.010311s
get 100 keys raw sock
                        760.185 (±21.7%) i/s    (1.32 ms/i) -      7.209k in  10.066808s
Comparison:
get 100 keys raw sock:      760.2 i/s
        get 100 keys:      633.1 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error

paired with Aaron and was able to cut allocations in half... while it still doesn't show up as much in a micro benchmark this should add up across all cache calls across all web requests. The new method is a bit harder to understand, but feels worth it for such a frequently used tight loop.

before: 1944
after: 851

@danmayer danmayer requested a review from tenderworks February 14, 2025 19:57
Copy link

@tenderworks tenderworks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Only a couple comments, but nothing that should block this PR as-is.

@danmayer
Copy link
Author

Note: this is the optimized get multi only use for single server with raw mode... we should run tests in deployed systems (staging) before merging

@@ -249,7 +250,7 @@ def next_line_to_tokens

def read_data(data_size)
resp_data = @io_source.read(data_size)
@io_source.read(TERMINATOR.bytesize)
@io_source.read_to_outstring(TERMINATOR.bytesize, @terminator_buffer)
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this removes an additional allocation for all the non multi calls

…what is supported for simplified fast get multi
@danmayer
Copy link
Author

OK, I finally had some time to capture data on this. Setting up two staging environments and running 1:1 traffic between them. The differences are small but seem to be better across all metrics with this change. Reduced object allocations, CPU, and request time. With no increases in errors.

Data available in internal drive "Dalli Object Allocations"

@@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ def quiet?
alias multi? quiet?

# NOTE: Additional public methods should be overridden in Dalli::Threadsafe
ALLOWED_QUIET_OPS = %i[add replace set delete incr decr append prepend flush noop].freeze

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not understanding the reason for making this public (at least as part of this PR)?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

rubocop update complained about private constant.

TERMINATOR = "\r\n"
META_NOOP = "mn\r\n"
META_NOOP_RESP = 'MN'

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where's this used?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah these got refactored away, I can remove them

TERMINATOR = "\r\n"
META_NOOP = "mn\r\n"
META_NOOP_RESP = 'MN'
META_VALUE_RESP = 'VA'

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same question as above

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