Worse performance after parsing 2 large values

[nihohit]

Worse performance after parsing 2 large values

[nihohit]

You could try this branch to see if it helps

It helps! Thanks for the quick implementation.
Actually, not only does it help, but it's also faster on the first call, not only on the repeat calls. Amazing work!

[Marwes]

I think there may be an accidentally quadratic behavior here, where when you run it using an actual IO device the data comes in chunks and every time we read a new chunk we go through extend_buf_sync we end up initializing the buffer againbefore passing it to the std::io::Read.

Hypothesis

When reading the first value we end up incrementally increasing the size of the buffer, extending it by8 * 1024 bytes every time it needs to grow when we read a new chunk of data. But for any values following that the buffer is already huge! While we don't need to grow the buffer again, we still end up initializing the entire uninitialized part of the buffer (it is uninitialized as far as the code is aware, but it is actually initialized from the previous value). So when we again read the data coming in chunks we get quadratic behaviour from repeatedly initializing the huge buffer.

This doesn't show when reading straight from from a byte buffer because the data is available in full, so as we get to the second value we only do a single call to extend_buf_sync/read and that fills the buffer with the entire value all at once.

Fixes

I can think of three at the top of my head.

• Cap how much we initialize (and thus are able to read) in each call to extend_buf_sync/read
  • Very easy, but will still have overhead
• Track how much of the buffer is initialized from previous calls and avoid doing the initialization on this again
  • Ideal, more or less, given the APIs std gives us at this time. But it does involve more unsafe since we must give std::io::Read::read an initialized buffer.
• Wait for https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/trait.Read.html#method.read_buf to stabilize
  • This basically mirrors the API tokio (and consequentally redis-rs and combine's async versions uses). This API allows the initialization step be omitted entirely without unsafe (at this level, at the lower levels there are still unsafe)

I'd probably prefer point 2, but I may need a little before I have time for it. If you want to try something easy, 1 would be easy to patch in to test the hypothesis. If you are able to produce a minimized example I can add to combine's tests or benchmarks that would be appreciated the partial-io crate used in combine can be used to simulate reading data in chunks while still using in memory data.

[nihohit]

I don't know if it helps, but the initial report was about async redis-rs. Would a flamegraph from an async version help? I would be happy to try and make a fix, but I'm not sure how to simulate/recreate this behavior in a test. Do you have any suggestions?

…

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 16:28 Markus Westerlind, ***@***.***> wrote: I think there may be an accidentally quadratic behavior here, where when you run it using an actual IO device the data comes in chunks and every time we read a new chunk we go through extend_buf_sync we end up initializing the buffer againbefore passing it to the std::io::Read. Hypothesis When reading the first value we end up incrementally increasing the size of the buffer, extending it by8 * 1024 bytes every time it needs to grow when we read a new chunk of data. But for any values following that the buffer is already huge! While we don't need to grow the buffer again, we still end up initializing the entire uninitialized part of the buffer (it is uninitialized as far as the code is aware, but it is actually initialized from the previous value). So when we again read the data coming in chunks we get quadratic behaviour from repeatedly initializing the huge buffer. This doesn't show when reading straight from from a byte buffer because the data is available in full, so as we get to the second value we only do a single call to extend_buf_sync/read and that fills the buffer with the entire value all at once. Fixes I can think of three at the top of my head. - Cap how much we initialize (and thus are able to read) in each call to extend_buf_sync/read - Very easy, but will still have overhead - Track how much of the buffer is initialized from previous calls and avoid doing the initialization on this again - Ideal, more or less, given the APIs std gives us at this time. But it does involve more unsafe since we must give std::io::Read::read an initialized buffer. - Wait for https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/io/trait.Read.html#method.read_buf to stabilize - This basically mirrors the API tokio (and consequentally redis-rs and combine's async versions uses). This API allows the initialization step be omitted entirely without unsafe (at this level, at the lower levels there are still unsafe) I'd probably prefer point 2, but I may need a little before I have time for it. If you want to try something easy, 1 would be easy to patch in to test the hypothesis. If you are able to produce a minimized example I can add to combine's tests or benchmarks that would be appreciated the partial-io crate used in combine can be used to simulate reading data in chunks while still using in memory data. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#364 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDEBBSBYHFYFMSIO4PZ6HDY3VIQ7AVCNFSM6AAAAABFXGXHOCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZXGIZDQNJTHA> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Marwes]

I don't know if it helps, but the initial report was about async redis-rs.

Didn't see that, the async version wouldn't call extend_buf_sync so perhaps it is a similar issue, but the posted flamegraphs doesn't apply to it.

[Marwes]

You could try this branch to see if it helps (implements point 1) https://github.com/Marwes/combine/tree/perf_extend_buf_sync

[nihohit]

Didn't see that, the async version wouldn't call extend_buf_sync so perhaps it is a similar issue, but the posted flamegraphs doesn't apply to it.

No, you're right - this doesn't happen in the async non-TLS runs, only in async TLS runs. Thanks for correcting me!

edit: or, at least I can't repro it in async non-TLS. here redis-rs/redis-rs#1128 (comment) the original writer claims that he sees the same.

[artemrakov]

@Marwes Can I create pr with your change (point 1) with additional testing using partial-io or you think it is more appropriate to implement point 2 solution?

[Marwes]

@artemrakov Go ahead

[Marwes]

Actually, not only does it help, but it's also faster on the first call, not only on the repeat calls. Amazing work!

it will likely be a performance regression if the reader could actually fill the entire buffer that were initialized, but that would just be a constant factor so especially for a temporary workaround, that is fine.