Sorry for the delay in reply. Traveling. I'm afraid that our next step of extensive testing in production with jemalloc but without ATS free lists has been delayed due to packaging transitions. Now we are in a good place to be doing that testing, and it will be a goal for Fei in Q1.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:23 PM Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > Ah, yes I recall now. Did we ever take the next step here like was > mentioned in the comments? > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:45 PM Susan Hinrichs <shinr...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I believe it came in on > https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/3246 > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:04 PM Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Can you point me to the PR/commit on github? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:51 PM SUSAN HINRICHS <shinr...@ieee.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Fei committed the don't dump fix for jemalloc a few months back. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 4:46 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem was that we were using jemalloc as a drop in > > replacement > > > > for > > > > > > malloc/free. The DONT_DUMP issue is easy to address when using > the > > > > > jemalloc > > > > > > APIs directly. Perhaps someone will make me a salami sandwich > and I > > > > will > > > > > > write the patch over the holiday break. Whiskey wouldn't hurt > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will provide both. I’ll even tap into the expensive, one of a > kind > > > > > Jameson irish whiskey I picked up in Cork. > > > > > > > > > > — Leif > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:49 AM Alan Carroll > > > > > > <solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Pushkar - based on my understanding of Fei's experiments, the > > issue > > > > was > > > > > >> doing the DONT_DUMP marking, which would cause problems with > > > jemalloc. > > > > > >> That's part of the effort of getting jemalloc ready. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Walt - I've read through your code and I don't really the > > benefits. > > > > It's > > > > > >> definitely cleaner code, but I don't see the implementation > > > advantage, > > > > > >> particularly with regard to reducing pressure on heaps. E.g. "f > > > there > > > > > are a > > > > > >> lot of smaller dynamic > > > > > >> objects with short lifetimes, it will reduce thread blocking on > > the > > > > heap > > > > > >> mutex" - I don't see that. With the current implementation, in > > those > > > > > >> circumstances there is extremely little pressure on the heap > > because > > > > the > > > > > >> objects are popping on and off thread local free lists and not > > > hitting > > > > > the > > > > > >> underlying allocation mechanism. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, AFAICT from the code, objects that are bigger than a > pointer > > > are > > > > > >> allocated directly from the heap. Given that few, if any, of the > > ATS > > > > > >> objects in question are that small, it seems like this > effectively > > > > > disables > > > > > >> freelists. How is that better than just calling new and delete > > > > directly? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Another major problem is that, due the current free list > > > > implementation, > > > > > >> there is not much concern about constructors and destructors and > > > > > depending > > > > > >> on those to keep object state correct is likely to be bug prone. > > > This > > > > is > > > > > >> going to be an issue for jemalloc as well, but if we're going to > > do > > > > the > > > > > >> work we should move all the way to no free lists at all. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:05 PM Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> The freelist can be used with jemalloc, but the thought/theory > is > > > > that > > > > > >> you > > > > > >>> can turn off the freelist and use jemalloc and get similar > > > > performance. > > > > > >>> This needs to be validated. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -Bryan > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Walt Karas > <wka...@oath.com.INVALID > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I thought jemalloc is used as a drop-in replacement for the > > > standard > > > > > >> lib > > > > > >>>> heap functions / operators. So how can the freelist stuff not > > > work > > > > > >> with > > > > > >>> it? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:48 PM Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> There is no point in cleaning up the code if the plan is to > not > > > use > > > > > it > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>> remove it from our codebase. Work should be done on proving > > that > > > > > >>> jemalloc > > > > > >>>>> is valid alternative. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> If jemalloc doesn’t prove to workout, then we might look at > > > > cleaning > > > > > >> up > > > > > >>>>> the freelist. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> -Bryan > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 5:42 PM, Walt Karas > > <wka...@oath.com.INVALID > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> As far as one can tell is a big limitation with code like: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> #if (defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__) || > > defined(__mips__)) > > > > && > > > > > >>>>>>> (SIZEOF_VOIDP == 4) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_POINTER(_x) (_x).s.pointer > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_VERSION(_x) (_x).s.version > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define SET_FREELIST_POINTER_VERSION(_x, _p, _v) \ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (_x).s.pointer = _p; \ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (_x).s.version = _v > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #elif TS_HAS_128BIT_CAS > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_POINTER(_x) (_x).s.pointer > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_VERSION(_x) (_x).s.version > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define SET_FREELIST_POINTER_VERSION(_x, _p, _v) \ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (_x).s.pointer = _p; \ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (_x).s.version = _v > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #elif defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__ia64__) || > > > > > >>> defined(__powerpc64__) > > > > > >>>>>>> || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__mips64) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_POINTER(_x) \ > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> ((void *)(((((intptr_t)(_x).data) << 16) >> 16) | > > > > > >>>>>>> (((~((((intptr_t)(_x).data) << 16 >> 63) - 1)) >> 48) << > > 48))) > > > // > > > > > >> sign > > > > > >>>>>>> extend > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define FREELIST_VERSION(_x) (((intptr_t)(_x).data) >> 48) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #define SET_FREELIST_POINTER_VERSION(_x, _p, _v) (_x).data > = > > > > > >>>>>>> ((((intptr_t)(_p)) & 0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFFULL) | > > (((_v)&0xFFFFULL) > > > > << > > > > > >>> 48)) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #else > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #error "unsupported processor" > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> #endif > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:02 PM Leif Hedstrom < > > zw...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 10:29 AM, SUSAN HINRICHS < > > > shinr...@ieee.org > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Based on Fei's measurements, the ATS freelists provide no > > > > benefit > > > > > >>> over > > > > > >>>>>>>> jemalloc. We are now in a position to do larger tests > over > > > our > > > > > >>>>>>> production > > > > > >>>>>>>> installs. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Agreed, that was generally what I noticed too, except, I > > could > > > > not > > > > > >> get > > > > > >>>>> ATS > > > > > >>>>>>> to be stable with just jemalloc. It’d eventually get > unhappy, > > > > but I > > > > > >>>>> didn’t > > > > > >>>>>>> investigate further. But this is my point, lets focus the > > > efforts > > > > > on > > > > > >>>>> moving > > > > > >>>>>>> us forward, to jemalloc, and not mess around with freelist > as > > > it > > > > > is, > > > > > >>>>>>> because it works fine as far as I can tell. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> — leif > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> *Beware the fisherman who's casting out his line in to a dried > up > > > > > >> riverbed.* > > > > > >> *Oh don't try to tell him 'cause he won't believe. Throw some > > bread > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > >> ducks instead.* > > > > > >> *It's easier that way. *- Genesis : Duke : VI 25-28 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
