discovering and understanding performance bottlenecks in transactional applications
DESCRIPTION
Discovering and Understanding Performance Bottlenecks in Transactional Applications. Ferad Zyulkyarov 1,2 , Srdjan Stipic 1,2 , Tim Harris 3 , Osman S. Unsal 1 , Adrián Cristal 1,4 , Ibrahim Hur 1 , Mateo Valero 1,2. 1 BSC-Microsoft Research Centre 2 Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Discovering and Understanding Performance Bottlenecks in Transactional
ApplicationsFerad Zyulkyarov1,2, Srdjan Stipic1,2, Tim Harris3, Osman S. Unsal1,
Adrián Cristal1,4, Ibrahim Hur1, Mateo Valero1,2
1BSC-Microsoft Research Centre2Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
3Microsoft Research Cambridge4IIIA - Artificial Intelligence Research Institute CSIC - Spanish National Research Council
19th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques11-15 September 2010 – Vienna
2
Abstract the TM Implementation
for (i = 0; i < N; i++){ atomic { x[i]++; }}
for (i = 0; i < N; i++){ atomic { y[i]++; }}
Thread 1 Thread 2Accesses to different arrays.We can observe
overheads inherent to the TM implementation.We are not interested in
such bottlenecks.
3
Abstract the TM Implementation
for (i = 0; i < N; i++){ atomic { x[i]++; }}
for (i = 0; i < N; i++){ atomic { x[i]++; }}
Thread 1 Thread 2Accesses to the same
arrays.Contention:
Bottleneck common to all implementations of the TM
programming model.We are interested in this
kind of bottlenecks.
4
Can We Find This Kind of Bottlenecks?
atomic{ statement1;
statement2;
statement3;
statement4;
}
Abort rate 80%
Where aborts happen?Which variables
conflict?Are there false conflicts?
5
Can We Find This Kind of Bottlenecks?
atomic{ statement1;
statement2;
statement3;
statement4;
}
counter1=0;
counter2=0;
counter3=0;
counter4=0;
6
Can We Find This Kind of Bottlenecks?
atomic{ statement1;
statement2;
statement3;
statement4;
}
counter1=1;
counter2=0;
counter3=0;
counter4=0;
7
Can We Find This Kind of Bottlenecks?
atomic{ statement1;
statement2;
statement3;
statement4;
}
counter1=1;
counter2=1;
counter3=0;
counter4=0;
Conflict between statement2 and
statement4.
GoalProfiling techniques to find bottlenecks (important
conflicting locations) and why these conflicts happen.
8
Outline
Profiling TechniquesImplementationCase Studies
9
Profiling Techniques
Visualizing transactionsConflict point discoveryIdentifying conflicting data structures
Transaction Visualizer (Genome)
10
Aborts occur at the first and last atomic blocks in
program order.
Garbage Collection
14% Aborts
Wait on barrier
When these aborts
happen?
Aborts Graph (Bayes)
11
AB1 AB2
AB3
AB4
AB5
AB6
AB7
AB8
AB9
AB10
AB12
AB11
AB13
AB14
AB1593% Aborts
73% 20%
12
Number of Aborts vs Wasted Work
atomic{ counter++}
atomic{ hashtable.Rehash();}
Aborts = 9 Aborts = 1Wasted Work = 10% Wasted Work = 90%
Conflict Point Discovery
13
File:Line #Conf. Method Line
Hashtable.cs:51 152 Add If (_container[hashCode]…
Hashtable.cs:48 62 Add uint hashCode = HashSdbm(…
Hashtable.cs:53 5 Add _container[hashCode] = n …
Hashtable.cs:83 5 Add while (entry != null) …
ArrayList.cs:79 3 Contains for (int i = 0; i < count; i++ )
ArrayList.cs:52 1 Add if (count == capacity – 1) …
Conflicts Context
14
increment() { counter++;}
probability80 { probability = random() % 100; if (probability < 80) { atomic { increment(); } }}
probability20 { probability = random() % 100; if (probability >= 80) { atomic { increment(); } }}
Thread 1------------for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { probability80(); probability20();}
Thread 2------------for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { probability80(); probability20();}
All conflicts happen here.
Bottom-up view
+ increment (100%) |---- probability80 (80%) |---- probability20 (20%)
Top-down view
+ main (100%) |---- probability80 (80%) |---- increment (80%) |-----probability20 (20%) |---- increment (20%)
15
Identifying multiple conflictsfrom a single run
atomic { obj1.x = t1; obj2.x = t2; obj3.x = t3; ... ... ...}
atomic { ... ... ... obj1.x = t1; obj2.x = t2; obj3.x = t3;}
Thread 1 Thread 2Conflict detected at 1st iterationConflict detected at 2nd
iterationConflict detected at 3rd iteration
Identifying Conflicting Objects
16
List list = new List();list.Add(1);list.Add(2);list.Add(3);...atomic { list.Replace(3, 33);}
List 1 2 3
0x08 0x10 0x18 0x20
GC DbgEng
Object Addr0x20
GC Root0x08
Variable Name (list)
Memory Allocator DbgEng
Instr Addr0x446290 List.cs:1
Per-Object View
+ List.cs:1 “list” (42%) |--- ChangeNode (20 %) +---- Replace (12%) +---- Add (8%)
17
Outline
Profiling TechniquesImplementation- Bartok- The data that we collect- Probe effect and profiling
Case Studies
18
Bartok
• C# to x86 research compiler with language level support for TM
• STM– Eager versioning (i.e. in place update)– Detects write-write conflicts eagerly (i.e. immediately)– Detects read-write conflicts lazily (i.e. at commit)– Detects conflicts at object granularity
19
Profiling Data That We Collect
• Timestamp– TX start, – TX commit or TX abort
• Read and write set size• On abort
– The instruction of the read and write operations involved in the conflict
– The conflicting memory address– The call stack
• Process data offline or during GC
20
Probe Effect and Overheads
Thread Bayes Genome Intruder Labyrinth Vacation WormBench1 0.59 0.27 0.29 0.07 0.26 0.292 0.45 0.30 0.39 0.03 0.24 0.054 0.01 0.21 0.55 0.01 0.18 0.088 0.02 0.18 1.19 0.16 0.19 0.11
Normalized Abort Rates
Normalized Execution Time
Thread Bayes Genome Intruder Labyrinth Vacation WormBench2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.008 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.016
Average 0.25
21
Outline
Profiling TechniquesImplementationCase Studies
22
Case Studies
BayesIntruderLabyrinth
23
Bayes
public class FindBestTaskArg { public int toId; public Learner learnerPtr; public Query[] queries; public Vector queryVectorPtr; public Vector parentQueryVectorPtr; public int numTotalParent; public float basePenalty; public float baseLogLikelihood; public Bitmap bitmapPtr; public Queue workQueuePtr; public Vector aQueryVectorPtr; public Vector bQueryVectorPtr;}
Wrapper object for function arguments.
FindBestTaskArg arg = new FindBestTaskArg();
arg.learnerPtr = learnerPtr;arg.queries = queries;arg.queryVectorPtr = queryVectorPtr;arg.parentQueryVectorPtr = parentQueryVectorPtr;arg.bitmapPtr = visitedBitmapPtr;arg.workQueuePtr = workQueuePtr;arg.aQueryVectorPtr = aQueryVectorPtr;arg.bQueryVectorPtr = bQueryVectorPtr;
Create wrapper object.
24
Bayes
public class FindBestTaskArg { public int toId; public Learner learnerPtr; public Query[] queries; public Vector queryVectorPtr; public Vector parentQueryVectorPtr; public int numTotalParent; public float basePenalty; public float baseLogLikelihood; public Bitmap bitmapPtr; public Queue workQueuePtr; public Vector aQueryVectorPtr; public Vector bQueryVectorPtr;}
FindBestTaskArg arg = new FindBestTaskArg();
arg.learnerPtr = learnerPtr;arg.queries = queries;arg.queryVectorPtr = queryVectorPtr;arg.parentQueryVectorPtr = parentQueryVectorPtr;arg.bitmapPtr = visitedBitmapPtr;arg.workQueuePtr = workQueuePtr;arg.aQueryVectorPtr = aQueryVectorPtr;arg.bQueryVectorPtr = bQueryVectorPtr;
atomic { FindBestInsertTask(BestTaskArg arg)}
Call the function using the wrapper
object.
Create wrapper object.
98% of wasted work is due to the wrapper object
2 threads – 24% execution time4 threads – 80% execution time
25
Bayes – Solution
atomic { FindBestInsertTaskArg ( toId, learnerPtr, queries, queryVectorPtr, parentQueryVectorPtr, numTotalParent, basePenalty, baseLogLikelihood, bitmapPtr, workQueuePtr, aQueryVectorPtr, bQueryVectorPtr, );}
Passed the arguments directly and avoid
using wrapper object.
26
Intruder – Map Data Structure
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 4
2 3
1 2
1
1/3
3/16/2
4/3
6/32/46/4
Network Stream
Assembled packet fragments
27
Network Stream
Assembled packet fragments
Intruder – Map Data Structure
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 4
2 3
1 2
1
1/3
3/1
6/2
4/3
6/32/46/4
Aborts caused 68% wasted
work.
Replaced with a chaining hashtable.
28
Intruder – Moving Code
Write-write conflicts are
detected eagerly.
More to roll back more wasted workatomic
{ Decoded decodedPtr = new Decoded();
char[] data = new char[length]; Array.Copy(packetPtr.Data, data, length); decodedPtr.flowId = flowId; decodedPtr.data = data;
} this.decodedQueuePtr.Push(decodedPtr);
Little to roll back, less wasted work
29
Labyrinth
atomic{ localGrid.CopyFrom(globalGrid);
if (this.PdoExpansion(myGrid, myExpansionQueue, src, dst)) { pointVector = PdoTraceback(grid, myGrid, dst, bendCost); success = true; raced = grid.addPathOfOffsets(pointVector); }}
2 threads – 80% wasted work4 threads – 98% wasted work
Watson PACT’07, it is safe if localGrid is not
up to date.
Don’t instrument CopyFrom with
transactional read and writes.
30
Summary
• Design principles– Abstract the underlying TM system– Report results at the source language constructs– Low instrumentation probe effect and overhead
• Profiling techniques– Visualizing transactions– Conflict point discovery– Identifying conflicting data structures
31
PPoPP’2010Debugging Programs that use Atomic Blocks and Transactional Memory
ICS’2009 QuakeTM: Parallelizing a Complex Serial Application Using Transactional Memory
PPoPP’2008 Atomic Quake: Using Transactional Memory in an Interactive Multiplayer Game Server
Край