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

Improve client http connection pools #4975

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 31, 2020
Merged

Improve client http connection pools #4975

merged 1 commit into from Jul 31, 2020

Conversation

lorban
Copy link
Contributor

@lorban lorban commented Jun 17, 2020

Fixes #4809 : introduced setMaxUsageCount(int) on DuplexConnectionPool and MultiplexConnectionPool
Fixes #3248 : introduced preCreateConnections(int) on AbstractConnectionPool

Modify the HTTP client's connection pooling internal mechanism to stop using queues and removing pooled connections from the pool but rather mark them as they're used and released. This improves performance by 2.5X (worst case) up to 100X (best case).

The pooling algorithm should be generic enough to be reusable for any kind of object pooling (ByteBuffers...)

@lorban lorban changed the title Improve http connection pools Improve client http connection pools Jun 22, 2020
@lorban lorban marked this pull request as ready for review June 30, 2020 14:24
@sbordet sbordet self-requested a review July 3, 2020 14:41
@lorban lorban requested review from gregw and sbordet July 10, 2020 08:11
int pending = AtomicBiInteger.getHi(encoded);
int total = AtomicBiInteger.getLo(encoded);
int pending = pendingConnectionCount.get();
int total = pool.size() + pending;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This still needs to be resolved.

@lorban
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorban commented Jul 15, 2020

@gregw regarding the int total = pool.size() + pending; race condition, I've already modified the code to handle it this way:

The callback now adds the connection to the pool before decrementing the pending connection count. This prevents the total variable to ever overshoot the configured maxConnections with the only drawback that a race condition at the wrong time may lead the pool to not create an extra connection while there is still room in the pool. The next time the pool needs an extra connection it will attempt to create one and will eventually succeed.

Since the above situation is transient, and only happens during warmup or a spike of requests, it wouldn't take long for the pool to eventually reach its max size: I do not think that more than a few attempts would end up not creating the connections and the moer you pile up work, the shorter this situation will last.

IMHO it's not worth duplicating the pool size in AbstractConnectionPool and maintaining it strictly in sync with pendingConnectionCount.

This is yet another case of "embracing the race" rather than handling it.

@lorban lorban requested a review from gregw July 15, 2020 09:51
@gregw
Copy link
Contributor

gregw commented Jul 15, 2020

@lorban Still don't like it!
How about the following - we get rid of the whole concept of pending. Instead we immediately add a new entry, but one that has already been acquired so that nothing will take it out of the pool. Once the connection is actually completed we release it, otherwise if the connection fails we take it out. Then we don't have two size+pending, we just have size.

@lorban
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorban commented Jul 16, 2020

@gregw I took your idea and ran with it.

The Pool now has a reserve-then-enable model: you first reserve a slot which creates a closed entry that cannot be acquired, then you can either enable the entry which makes it acquirable, or remove it from the pool.

Copy link
Contributor

@gregw gregw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Much better, but I'd do the total>max test within the addReservation lock.

@lorban lorban requested a review from gregw July 16, 2020 15:46
Copy link
Contributor

@gregw gregw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

getting closer

@lorban lorban requested a review from gregw July 27, 2020 09:23
Copy link
Contributor

@gregw gregw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm down to just some naming & documentation niggles, plus a thought bubble for another optimisation.

@sbordet has asked some questions that I'd like to see the answers to.. maybe we should have a final hangout on this?, but overall I'm +1


protected Connection active(Connection connection)
protected Connection activate(int offset)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still have concerns about this - I would like to move the "index" to round-robin only, as others don't need it.

jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
{
reservationLock.unlock();
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't this method very costly now? with the stream filtering and the lock? Can't we use the entry state to "reserve"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lorban lorban Jul 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For a certain definition of costly, yes: this method takes a lock and iterates the shared list. But over the Grand Scheme of Things, adding entries to the pool should be a rather uncommon event, I don't think adding new pooled entries every millisecond is a sane behavior after warmup is done. So overall, I don't think it really matters.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed, I think the lock can be made smaller (just rename it from reservationLock to lock as it's also used to protect closed).

Only 138-142 needs to be guarded by the lock.

@Override
public void close()
{
reservationLock.lock();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why the lock here? I mean that it seems to protect close but not everywhere, and works on the same variables that are used in other methods but not protected by this lock.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lorban lorban Jul 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The only thing that must not happen concurrently is the addition of entries to the shared list, and additions while it is being cleaned up as this could cause:

  • overshooting maxEntries
  • overshooting maxReservations
  • creating entries in a closed pool

while concurrently acquiring / releasing / removing entries can be safely handled. So this is what this lock is about.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed, the lock can be reduced to flip closed, copy the entries, and clear sharedList.
The iteration can be outside.

Copy link
Contributor

@sbordet sbordet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Almost there.

@Override
public void close()
{
reservationLock.lock();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed, the lock can be reduced to flip closed, copy the entries, and clear sharedList.
The iteration can be outside.

jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jetty-util/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/util/Pool.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@sbordet sbordet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Please remember to use AutoLock when you merge to 10 in class Pool which is a new class (and you will have to change the copyright header as well).

Signed-off-by: Ludovic Orban <lorban@bitronix.be>
@sbordet sbordet merged commit 344cdf5 into jetty:jetty-9.4.x Jul 31, 2020
sbordet added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2020
Signed-off-by: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
@gregw
Copy link
Contributor

gregw commented Aug 3, 2020

\o/ So are improved ByteBufferPools next?

sbordet added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 12, 2020
Implemented as part of #4975.

Added a test case that proves that the connection is closed
when the max usage count is reached.

Improved logging.

Signed-off-by: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
@sbordet sbordet linked an issue Aug 12, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
@lorban lorban deleted the http-connection-pools branch August 17, 2020 07:48
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.

Set a max number of requests per connection
3 participants