Migrates the remaining crates to edition 2024. We like to stay on the
latest edition if possible. There is no functional changes, however some
code changes had to be done to accommodate the edition's breaking
changes.
Like the previous migration PRs, this is comprised of three commits:
* the first does the edition update and makes `cargo check`/`cargo
clippy` pass. we had to update bindgen to make its output [satisfy the
requirements of edition
2024](https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2024/unsafe-extern.html)
* the second commit does a `cargo fmt` for the new style edition.
* the third commit reorders imports as a one-off change. As before, it
is entirely optional.
Part of #10918
# Problem
Before this PR, there were cases where send() in state
SenderWaitsForReceiverToConsume would never be woken up
by the receiver, because it never registered with `wake_sender`.
Example Scenario 1: we stop polling a send() future A that was waiting
for the receiver to consume. We drop A and create a new send() future B.
B would return Poll::Pending and never regsister a waker.
Example Scenario 2: a send() future A transitions from HasData
to SenderWaitsForReceiverToConsume. This registers the context X
with `wake_sender`. But before the Receiver consumes the data,
we poll A from a different context Y.
The state is still SenderWaitsForReceiverToConsume, but we wouldn't
register the new context with `wake_sender`.
When the Receiver comes around to consume and `wake_sender.notify()`s,
it wakes the old context X instead of Y.
# Fix
Register the waker in the case where we're polled in
state `SenderWaitsForReceiverToConsume`.
# Relation to #10309
I found this bug while investigating #10309.
There was never proof that this bug here is the root cause for #10309.
In the meantime we found a more probably hypothesis
for the root cause than what is being fixed here.
Regardless, let's walk through my thought process about
how it might have been relevant:
There (in page_service), Scenario 1 does not apply because
we poll the send() future to completion.
Scenario 2 (`tokio::join!`) also does not apply with the
current `tokio::join!()` impl, because it will just poll each
future every time, each with the same context.
Although if we ever used something like a FuturesUnordered anywhere,
that will be using a different context, so, in that case,
the bug might materialize.
Regarding tokio & spurious poll in general:
@conradludgate is not aware of any spurious wakeup cases in current
tokio,
but within a `tokio::join!()`, any wake meant for one future will poll
all
the futures, so that can appear as a spurious wake up to the N-1 futures
of the `tokio::join!()`.
# Problem
The timeout-based batching adds latency to unbatchable workloads.
We can choose a short batching timeout (e.g. 10us) but that requires
high-resolution timers, which tokio doesn't have.
I thoroughly explored options to use OS timers (see
[this](https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9822) abandoned PR).
In short, it's not an attractive option because any timer implementation
adds non-trivial overheads.
# Solution
The insight is that, in the steady state of a batchable workload, the
time we spend in `get_vectored` will be hundreds of microseconds anyway.
If we prepare the next batch concurrently to `get_vectored`, we will
have a sizeable batch ready once `get_vectored` of the current batch is
done and do not need an explicit timeout.
This can be reasonably described as **pipelining of the protocol
handler**.
# Implementation
We model the sub-protocol handler for pagestream requests
(`handle_pagrequests`) as two futures that form a pipeline:
2. Batching: read requests from the connection and fill the current
batch
3. Execution: `take` the current batch, execute it using `get_vectored`,
and send the response.
The Reading and Batching stage are connected through a new type of
channel called `spsc_fold`.
See the long comment in the `handle_pagerequests_pipelined` for details.
# Changes
- Refactor `handle_pagerequests`
- separate functions for
- reading one protocol message; produces a `BatchedFeMessage` with just
one page request in it
- batching; tried to merge an incoming `BatchedFeMessage` into an
existing `BatchedFeMessage`; returns `None` on success and returns back
the incoming message in case merging isn't possible
- execution of a batched message
- unify the timeline handle acquisition & request span construction; it
now happen in the function that reads the protocol message
- Implement serial and pipelined model
- serial: what we had before any of the batching changes
- read one protocol message
- execute protocol messages
- pipelined: the design described above
- optionality for execution of the pipeline: either via concurrent
futures vs tokio tasks
- Pageserver config
- remove batching timeout field
- add ability to configure pipelining mode
- add ability to limit max batch size for pipelined configurations
(required for the rollout, cf
https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/20620 )
- ability to configure execution mode
- Tests
- remove `batch_timeout` parametrization
- rename `test_getpage_merge_smoke` to `test_throughput`
- add parametrization to test different max batch sizes and execution
moes
- rename `test_timer_precision` to `test_latency`
- rename the test case file to `test_page_service_batching.py`
- better descriptions of what the tests actually do
## On the holding The `TimelineHandle` in the pending batch
While batching, we hold the `TimelineHandle` in the pending batch.
Therefore, the timeline will not finish shutting down while we're
batching.
This is not a problem in practice because the concurrently ongoing
`get_vectored` call will fail quickly with an error indicating that the
timeline is shutting down.
This results in the Execution stage returning a `QueryError::Shutdown`,
which causes the pipeline / entire page service connection to shut down.
This drops all references to the
`Arc<Mutex<Option<Box<BatchedFeMessage>>>>` object, thereby dropping the
contained `TimelineHandle`s.
- => fixes https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9850
# Performance
Local run of the benchmarks, results in [this empty
commit](1cf5b1463f)
in the PR branch.
Key take-aways:
* `concurrent-futures` and `tasks` deliver identical `batching_factor`
* tail latency impact unknown, cf
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9837
* `concurrent-futures` has higher throughput than `tasks` in all
workloads (=lower `time` metric)
* In unbatchable workloads, `concurrent-futures` has 5% higher
`CPU-per-throughput` than that of `tasks`, and 15% higher than that of
`serial`.
* In batchable-32 workload, `concurrent-futures` has 8% lower
`CPU-per-throughput` than that of `tasks` (comparison to tput of
`serial` is irrelevant)
* in unbatchable workloads, mean and tail latencies of
`concurrent-futures` is practically identical to `serial`, whereas
`tasks` adds 20-30us of overhead
Overall, `concurrent-futures` seems like a slightly more attractive
choice.
# Rollout
This change is disabled-by-default.
Rollout plan:
- https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/20620
# Refs
- epic: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9376
- this sub-task: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9377
- the abandoned attempt to improve batching timeout resolution:
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9820
- closes https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9850
- fixes https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9835
