* Mathieu Desnoyers ([email protected]) wrote:
> Buckets with many entries encountered in a hash table could cause it to
> grow to a large size, beyond the scope for which this mechanism is
> expected to play a role when node accounting is available. Indeed, when
> the hash table grows to larger size, split-counter node accounting is
> expected to deal with resize/shrink rather than relying on an heuristic
> based on the largest bucket size.
> 
> This is fixing an issue where we see hash tables sometimes reaching 65k
> entries index (65536*8 = 524288 bytes) for a workload limited to adding
> 1000 entries and then removing all of them, done in a loop (random
> keys).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c
> index 423609d..283cd2d 100644
> --- a/rculfhash.c
> +++ b/rculfhash.c
> @@ -718,9 +718,32 @@ void check_resize(struct cds_lfht *ht, unsigned long 
> size, uint32_t chain_len)
>       if (chain_len > 100)
>               dbg_printf("WARNING: large chain length: %u.\n",
>                          chain_len);
> -     if (chain_len >= CHAIN_LEN_RESIZE_THRESHOLD)
> -             cds_lfht_resize_lazy_grow(ht, size,
> -                     cds_lfht_get_count_order_u32(chain_len - 
> (CHAIN_LEN_TARGET - 1)));
> +     if (chain_len >= CHAIN_LEN_RESIZE_THRESHOLD) {
> +             int growth;
> +
> +             /*
> +              * Ideal growth calculated based on chain length.
> +              */
> +             growth = cds_lfht_get_count_order_u32(chain_len
> +                             - (CHAIN_LEN_TARGET - 1));
> +             if ((ht->flags & CDS_LFHT_ACCOUNTING)
> +                             && (size << growth) >= (1UL << 
> COUNT_COMMIT_ORDER)) {

Actually, I think it would be cleaner to use the chain_len based
mechanism up to

  (1UL << COUNT_COMMIT_ORDER) * (split_count_mask + 1)

so we end up taking into account that the split-counters are only
committed into the global counter every COUNT_COMMIT_ORDER
increment/decrement.

It's not bad if we just use (1UL << COUNT_COMMIT_ORDER): we just end up
with larger chains in some cases (usually bounded by the log2(number of
CPUs)).

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> +                     /*
> +                      * If ideal growth expands the hash table size
> +                      * beyond the "small hash table" sizes, use the
> +                      * maximum small hash table size to attempt
> +                      * expanding the hash table. This only applies
> +                      * when node accounting is available, otherwise
> +                      * the chain length is used to expand the hash
> +                      * table in every case.
> +                      */
> +                     growth = COUNT_COMMIT_ORDER -
> +                             cds_lfht_get_count_order_u32(size);
> +                     if (growth <= 0)
> +                             return;
> +             }
> +             cds_lfht_resize_lazy_grow(ht, size, growth);
> +     }
>  }
>  
>  static
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

Reply via email to