Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Limit and monitor warmup memory usage #5568

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Limit and monitor warmup memory usage #5568

wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

rdettai
Copy link
Contributor

@rdettai rdettai commented Nov 28, 2024

Description

To better control the memory usage during search, we add some tooling around the warmup cache.

How was this PR tested?

Describe how you tested this PR.

fulmicoton and others added 12 commits November 26, 2024 10:03
Due to tantivy limitations, searching a split requires downloading all
of the required data, and keep them in memory. We call this phase
warmup.

Before this PR, the only thing that curbed memory usage was the search
permits: only N split search may happen concurrently.
Unfortunately, the amount of data required here varies vastly.

We need a mechanism to measure and avoid running more split search
when memory is tight.

Just using a semaphore is however not an option. We do not know
beforehands how much memory will be required by a split search, so it could easily
lead to a dead lock.

Instead, this commit builds upon the search permit provider.

The search permit provider is in charge of managing a configurable memory budget for this warmup memory.

We introduce here a configurable "warmup_single_split_initial_allocation".
A new leaf split search cannot be started if this memory is not
available. This initial allocation is meant to be greater than what will
be actually needed most of the time.

The split search then holds this allocation until the end of warmup.
After warmup, we can get the actual memory usage by interrogating the
warmup cache. We can then update the amount of memory held.
(most of the time, this should mean releasing some memory)

In addition, in this PR, at this point, we also release the warmup search permit:

We still have to perform the actual task of searching, but the thread
pool will take care of limiting the number of concurrent task.

Closes #5355
Also attach the permit to the actual memory cache to ensure memory is freed at the right moment.
Adding an extra generic field into the cache to optionally allow permit tracking is weird.
Instead, we make the directory generic on the type of cache and use a wrapped cache
when tracking is necessary.
Comment on lines +786 to +792
if is_top_5pct_memory_intensive(
resource_stats.short_lived_cache_num_bytes,
resource_stats.split_num_docs,
) {
// We log at most 5 times per minute.
quickwit_common::rate_limited_info!(limit_per_min=5, split_num_docs=resource_stats.split_num_docs, %search_request.query_ast, short_lived_cached_num_bytes=resource_stats.short_lived_cache_num_bytes, query=%search_request.query_ast, "memory intensive query");
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we create a metric as well?

@@ -226,6 +226,8 @@ pub struct SearcherConfig {
#[serde(default)]
#[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
pub storage_timeout_policy: Option<StorageTimeoutPolicy>,
pub warmup_memory_budget: ByteSize,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we define a default value for this?

And reuse the default value function in SearcherConfig::default for consistency

@@ -274,6 +276,8 @@ impl Default for SearcherConfig {
split_cache: None,
request_timeout_secs: Self::default_request_timeout_secs(),
storage_timeout_policy: None,
warmup_memory_budget: ByteSize::gb(1),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we want larger defaults here.
Maybe memory budget of 10GB
and single split alloc to 1GB or something like this.

fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "CachingDirectory({:?})", self.underlying)
}
}

struct CachingFileHandle {
struct CachingFileHandle<C> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what is the extra complexity for?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants