2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
// Copyright (c) 2021-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
// This source code is licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the
|
|
|
|
// COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License
|
|
|
|
// (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifdef GFLAGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#pragma once
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <stdint.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <atomic>
|
|
|
|
#include <memory>
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "db/dbformat.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "file/file_util.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/db.h"
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/env.h"
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/file_system.h"
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/rocksdb_namespace.h"
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "rocksdb/types.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/string_util.h"
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE {
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// This class is not thread-safe.
|
|
|
|
class ExpectedValue {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
static uint32_t GetValueBaseMask() { return VALUE_BASE_MASK; }
|
|
|
|
static uint32_t GetValueBaseDelta() { return VALUE_BASE_DELTA; }
|
|
|
|
static uint32_t GetDelCounterDelta() { return DEL_COUNTER_DELTA; }
|
|
|
|
static uint32_t GetDelMask() { return DEL_MASK; }
|
|
|
|
static bool IsValueBaseValid(uint32_t value_base) {
|
|
|
|
return IsValuePartValid(value_base, VALUE_BASE_MASK);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
explicit ExpectedValue(uint32_t expected_value)
|
|
|
|
: expected_value_(expected_value) {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool Exists() const { return PendingWrite() || !IsDeleted(); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t Read() const { return expected_value_; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void Put(bool pending);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool Delete(bool pending);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SyncPut(uint32_t value_base);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SyncPendingPut();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SyncDelete();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetValueBase() const { return GetValuePart(VALUE_BASE_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t NextValueBase() const {
|
|
|
|
return GetIncrementedValuePart(VALUE_BASE_MASK, VALUE_BASE_DELTA);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetValueBase(uint32_t new_value_base) {
|
|
|
|
SetValuePart(VALUE_BASE_MASK, new_value_base);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool PendingWrite() const {
|
|
|
|
const uint32_t pending_write = GetValuePart(PENDING_WRITE_MASK);
|
|
|
|
return pending_write != 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetPendingWrite() {
|
|
|
|
SetValuePart(PENDING_WRITE_MASK, PENDING_WRITE_MASK);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void ClearPendingWrite() { ClearValuePart(PENDING_WRITE_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetDelCounter() const { return GetValuePart(DEL_COUNTER_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t NextDelCounter() const {
|
|
|
|
return GetIncrementedValuePart(DEL_COUNTER_MASK, DEL_COUNTER_DELTA);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetDelCounter(uint32_t new_del_counter) {
|
|
|
|
SetValuePart(DEL_COUNTER_MASK, new_del_counter);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool PendingDelete() const {
|
|
|
|
const uint32_t pending_del = GetValuePart(PENDING_DEL_MASK);
|
|
|
|
return pending_del != 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetPendingDel() { SetValuePart(PENDING_DEL_MASK, PENDING_DEL_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void ClearPendingDel() { ClearValuePart(PENDING_DEL_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool IsDeleted() const {
|
|
|
|
const uint32_t deleted = GetValuePart(DEL_MASK);
|
|
|
|
return deleted != 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetDeleted() { SetValuePart(DEL_MASK, DEL_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void ClearDeleted() { ClearValuePart(DEL_MASK); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetFinalValueBase() const;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetFinalDelCounter() const;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
static bool IsValuePartValid(uint32_t value_part, uint32_t value_part_mask) {
|
|
|
|
return (value_part & (~value_part_mask)) == 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The 32-bit expected_value_ is divided into following parts:
|
|
|
|
// Bit 0 - 14: value base
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t VALUE_BASE_MASK = 0x7fff;
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t VALUE_BASE_DELTA = 1;
|
|
|
|
// Bit 15: whether write to this value base is pending (0 equals `false`)
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t PENDING_WRITE_MASK = (uint32_t)1 << 15;
|
|
|
|
// Bit 16 - 29: deletion counter (i.e, number of times this value base has
|
|
|
|
// been deleted)
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t DEL_COUNTER_MASK = 0x3fff0000;
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t DEL_COUNTER_DELTA = (uint32_t)1 << 16;
|
|
|
|
// Bit 30: whether deletion of this value base is pending (0 equals `false`)
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t PENDING_DEL_MASK = (uint32_t)1 << 30;
|
|
|
|
// Bit 31: whether this value base is deleted (0 equals `false`)
|
|
|
|
static constexpr uint32_t DEL_MASK = (uint32_t)1 << 31;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetValuePart(uint32_t value_part_mask) const {
|
|
|
|
return expected_value_ & value_part_mask;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetIncrementedValuePart(uint32_t value_part_mask,
|
|
|
|
uint32_t value_part_delta) const {
|
|
|
|
uint32_t current_value_part = GetValuePart(value_part_mask);
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue temp_expected_value(current_value_part + value_part_delta);
|
|
|
|
return temp_expected_value.GetValuePart(value_part_mask);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SetValuePart(uint32_t value_part_mask, uint32_t new_value_part) {
|
|
|
|
assert(IsValuePartValid(new_value_part, value_part_mask));
|
|
|
|
ClearValuePart(value_part_mask);
|
|
|
|
expected_value_ |= new_value_part;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void ClearValuePart(uint32_t value_part_mask) {
|
|
|
|
expected_value_ &= (~value_part_mask);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t expected_value_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class PendingExpectedValue {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit PendingExpectedValue(std::atomic<uint32_t>* value_ptr,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue orig_value,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue final_value)
|
|
|
|
: value_ptr_(value_ptr),
|
|
|
|
orig_value_(orig_value),
|
|
|
|
final_value_(final_value) {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void Commit() {
|
|
|
|
// To prevent low-level instruction reordering that results
|
|
|
|
// in setting expected value happens before db write
|
|
|
|
std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_release);
|
|
|
|
value_ptr_->store(final_value_.Read());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t GetFinalValueBase() { return final_value_.GetValueBase(); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
std::atomic<uint32_t>* const value_ptr_;
|
|
|
|
const ExpectedValue orig_value_;
|
|
|
|
const ExpectedValue final_value_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class ExpectedValueHelper {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
// Return whether value is expected not to exist from begining till the end
|
|
|
|
// of the read based on `pre_read_expected_value` and
|
|
|
|
// `pre_read_expected_value`.
|
|
|
|
static bool MustHaveNotExisted(ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Return whether value is expected to exist from begining till the end of
|
|
|
|
// the read based on `pre_read_expected_value` and
|
|
|
|
// `pre_read_expected_value`.
|
|
|
|
static bool MustHaveExisted(ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Return whether the `value_base` falls within the expected value base
|
|
|
|
static bool InExpectedValueBaseRange(uint32_t value_base,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue pre_read_expected_value,
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue post_read_expected_value);
|
|
|
|
};
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// An `ExpectedState` provides read/write access to expected values for every
|
|
|
|
// key.
|
|
|
|
class ExpectedState {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit ExpectedState(size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
virtual ~ExpectedState() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
virtual Status Open(bool create) = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering all keys in `cf`.
|
|
|
|
void ClearColumnFamily(int cf);
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Prepare a Put that will be started but not finished yet
|
|
|
|
// This is useful for crash-recovery testing when the process may crash
|
|
|
|
// before updating the corresponding expected value
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` to prevent concurrent
|
|
|
|
// write or delete to the same `key`.
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PreparePut(int cf, int64_t key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Does not requires external locking.
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue Get(int cf, int64_t key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Prepare a Delete that will be started but not finished yet
|
|
|
|
// This is useful for crash-recovery testing when the process may crash
|
|
|
|
// before updating the corresponding expected value
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` to prevent concurrent
|
|
|
|
// write or delete to the same `key`.
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PrepareDelete(int cf, int64_t key,
|
|
|
|
bool* prepared = nullptr);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` to prevent concurrent
|
|
|
|
// write or delete to the same `key`.
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PrepareSingleDelete(int cf, int64_t key);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering keys in `[begin_key, end_key)` in `cf`
|
|
|
|
// to prevent concurrent write or delete to the same `key`.
|
|
|
|
std::vector<PendingExpectedValue> PrepareDeleteRange(int cf,
|
|
|
|
int64_t begin_key,
|
|
|
|
int64_t end_key);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Update the expected value for start of an incomplete write or delete
|
|
|
|
// operation on the key assoicated with this expected value
|
|
|
|
void Precommit(int cf, int64_t key, const ExpectedValue& value);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` to prevent concurrent
|
|
|
|
// delete to the same `key`.
|
|
|
|
bool Exists(int cf, int64_t key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Sync the `value_base` to the corresponding expected value
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` or be in single thread
|
|
|
|
// to prevent concurrent write or delete to the same `key`
|
|
|
|
void SyncPut(int cf, int64_t key, uint32_t value_base);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Sync the corresponding expected value to be pending Put
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` or be in single thread
|
|
|
|
// to prevent concurrent write or delete to the same `key`
|
|
|
|
void SyncPendingPut(int cf, int64_t key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Sync the corresponding expected value to be deleted
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering `key` in `cf` or be in single thread
|
|
|
|
// to prevent concurrent write or delete to the same `key`
|
|
|
|
void SyncDelete(int cf, int64_t key);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Sync the corresponding expected values to be deleted
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering keys in `[begin_key, end_key)` in `cf`
|
|
|
|
// to prevent concurrent write or delete to the same `key`
|
|
|
|
void SyncDeleteRange(int cf, int64_t begin_key, int64_t end_key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Does not requires external locking.
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
std::atomic<uint32_t>& Value(int cf, int64_t key) const {
|
|
|
|
return values_[cf * max_key_ + key];
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// Does not requires external locking
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue Load(int cf, int64_t key) const {
|
|
|
|
return ExpectedValue(Value(cf, key).load());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
const size_t max_key_;
|
|
|
|
const size_t num_column_families_;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
protected:
|
|
|
|
size_t GetValuesLen() const {
|
|
|
|
return sizeof(std::atomic<uint32_t>) * num_column_families_ * max_key_;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
void Reset();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::atomic<uint32_t>* values_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A `FileExpectedState` implements `ExpectedState` backed by a file.
|
|
|
|
class FileExpectedState : public ExpectedState {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit FileExpectedState(std::string expected_state_file_path,
|
|
|
|
size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
Status Open(bool create) override;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
const std::string expected_state_file_path_;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<MemoryMappedFileBuffer> expected_state_mmap_buffer_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// An `AnonExpectedState` implements `ExpectedState` backed by a memory
|
|
|
|
// allocation.
|
|
|
|
class AnonExpectedState : public ExpectedState {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit AnonExpectedState(size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
Status Open(bool create) override;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<std::atomic<uint32_t>[]> values_allocation_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// An `ExpectedStateManager` manages data about the expected state of the
|
|
|
|
// database. It exposes operations for reading and modifying the latest
|
|
|
|
// expected state.
|
|
|
|
class ExpectedStateManager {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit ExpectedStateManager(size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
virtual ~ExpectedStateManager();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
virtual Status Open() = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
// Saves expected values for the current state of `db` and begins tracking
|
2021-12-15 20:53:32 +00:00
|
|
|
// changes. Following a successful `SaveAtAndAfter()`, `Restore()` can be
|
|
|
|
// called on the same DB, as long as its state does not roll back to before
|
|
|
|
// its current state.
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function. Furthermore, `db` must not be mutated while this function
|
|
|
|
// is executing.
|
|
|
|
virtual Status SaveAtAndAfter(DB* db) = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-15 20:53:32 +00:00
|
|
|
// Returns true if at least one state of historical expected values can be
|
|
|
|
// restored.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
virtual bool HasHistory() = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Restores expected values according to the current state of `db`. See
|
|
|
|
// `SaveAtAndAfter()` for conditions where this can be called.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function. Furthermore, `db` must not be mutated while this function
|
|
|
|
// is executing.
|
|
|
|
virtual Status Restore(DB* db) = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking covering all keys in `cf`.
|
|
|
|
void ClearColumnFamily(int cf) { return latest_->ClearColumnFamily(cf); }
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::PreparePut()
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PreparePut(int cf, int64_t key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->PreparePut(cf, key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::Get()
|
|
|
|
ExpectedValue Get(int cf, int64_t key) { return latest_->Get(cf, key); }
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::PrepareDelete()
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PrepareDelete(int cf, int64_t key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->PrepareDelete(cf, key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::PrepareSingleDelete()
|
|
|
|
PendingExpectedValue PrepareSingleDelete(int cf, int64_t key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->PrepareSingleDelete(cf, key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::PrepareDeleteRange()
|
|
|
|
std::vector<PendingExpectedValue> PrepareDeleteRange(int cf,
|
|
|
|
int64_t begin_key,
|
|
|
|
int64_t end_key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->PrepareDeleteRange(cf, begin_key, end_key);
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::Exists()
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
bool Exists(int cf, int64_t key) { return latest_->Exists(cf, key); }
|
|
|
|
|
Support parallel read and write/delete to same key in NonBatchedOpsStressTest (#11058)
Summary:
**Context:**
Current `NonBatchedOpsStressTest` does not allow multi-thread read (i.e, Get, Iterator) and write (i.e, Put, Merge) or delete to the same key. Every read or write/delete operation will acquire lock (`GetLocksForKeyRange`) on the target key to gain exclusive access to it. This does not align with RocksDB's nature of allowing multi-thread read and write/delete to the same key, that is concurrent threads can issue read/write/delete to RocksDB without external locking. Therefore this is a gap in our testing coverage.
To close the gap, biggest challenge remains in verifying db value against expected state in presence of parallel read and write/delete. The challenge is due to read/write/delete to the db and read/write to expected state is not within one atomic operation. Therefore we may not know the exact expected state of a certain db read, as by the time we read the expected state for that db read, another write to expected state for another db write to the same key might have changed the expected state.
**Summary:**
Credited to ajkr's idea, we now solve this challenge by breaking the 32-bits expected value of a key into different parts that can be read and write to in parallel.
Basically we divide the 32-bits expected value into `value_base` (corresponding to the previous whole 32 bits but now with some shrinking in the value base range we allow), `pending_write` (i.e, whether there is an ongoing concurrent write), `del_counter` (i.e, number of times a value has been deleted, analogous to value_base for write), `pending_delete` (similar to pending_write) and `deleted` (i.e whether a key is deleted).
Also, we need to use incremental `value_base` instead of random value base as before because we want to control the range of value base a correct db read result can possibly be in presence of parallel read and write. In that way, we can verify the correctness of the read against expected state more easily. This is at the cost of reducing the randomness of the value generated in NonBatchedOpsStressTest we are willing to accept.
(For detailed algorithm of how to use these parts to infer expected state of a key, see the PR)
Misc: hide value_base detail from callers of ExpectedState by abstracting related logics into ExpectedValue class
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11058
Test Plan:
- Manual test of small number of keys (i.e, high chances of parallel read and write/delete to same key) with equally distributed read/write/deleted for 30 min
```
python3 tools/db_crashtest.py --simple {blackbox|whitebox} --sync_fault_injection=1 --skip_verifydb=0 --continuous_verification_interval=1000 --clear_column_family_one_in=0 --max_key=10 --column_families=1 --threads=32 --readpercent=25 --writepercent=25 --nooverwritepercent=0 --iterpercent=25 --verify_iterator_with_expected_state_one_in=1 --num_iterations=5 --delpercent=15 --delrangepercent=10 --range_deletion_width=5 --use_merge={0|1} --use_put_entity_one_in=0 --use_txn=0 --verify_before_write=0 --user_timestamp_size=0 --compact_files_one_in=1000 --compact_range_one_in=1000 --flush_one_in=1000 --get_property_one_in=1000 --ingest_external_file_one_in=100 --backup_one_in=100 --checkpoint_one_in=100 --approximate_size_one_in=0 --acquire_snapshot_one_in=100 --use_multiget=0 --prefixpercent=0 --get_live_files_one_in=1000 --manual_wal_flush_one_in=1000 --pause_background_one_in=1000 --target_file_size_base=524288 --write_buffer_size=524288 --verify_checksum_one_in=1000 --verify_db_one_in=1000
```
- Rehearsal stress test for normal parameter and aggressive parameter to see if such change can find what existing stress test can find (i.e, no regression in testing capability)
- [Ongoing]Try to find new bugs with this change that are not found by current NonBatchedOpsStressTest with no parallel read and write/delete to same key
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D42257258
Pulled By: hx235
fbshipit-source-id: e6fdc18f1fad3753e5ac91731483a644d9b5b6eb
2023-05-15 22:34:22 +00:00
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::SyncPut()
|
|
|
|
void SyncPut(int cf, int64_t key, uint32_t value_base) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->SyncPut(cf, key, value_base);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::SyncPendingPut()
|
|
|
|
void SyncPendingPut(int cf, int64_t key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->SyncPendingPut(cf, key);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::SyncDelete()
|
|
|
|
void SyncDelete(int cf, int64_t key) { return latest_->SyncDelete(cf, key); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// See ExpectedState::SyncDeleteRange()
|
|
|
|
void SyncDeleteRange(int cf, int64_t begin_key, int64_t end_key) {
|
|
|
|
return latest_->SyncDeleteRange(cf, begin_key, end_key);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
protected:
|
|
|
|
const size_t max_key_;
|
|
|
|
const size_t num_column_families_;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<ExpectedState> latest_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A `FileExpectedStateManager` implements an `ExpectedStateManager` backed by
|
|
|
|
// a directory of files containing data about the expected state of the
|
|
|
|
// database.
|
|
|
|
class FileExpectedStateManager : public ExpectedStateManager {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit FileExpectedStateManager(size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families,
|
|
|
|
std::string expected_state_dir_path);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
Status Open() override;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::SaveAtAndAfter()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This implementation makes a copy of "LATEST.state" into
|
|
|
|
// "<current seqno>.state", and starts a trace in "<current seqno>.trace".
|
2021-12-15 20:53:32 +00:00
|
|
|
// Due to using external files, a following `Restore()` can happen even
|
|
|
|
// from a different process.
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
Status SaveAtAndAfter(DB* db) override;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-15 20:53:32 +00:00
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::HasHistory()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
bool HasHistory() override;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::Restore()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Say `db->GetLatestSequenceNumber()` was `a` last time `SaveAtAndAfter()`
|
|
|
|
// was called and now it is `b`. Then this function replays `b - a` write
|
|
|
|
// operations from "`a`.trace" onto "`a`.state", and then copies the resulting
|
|
|
|
// file into "LATEST.state".
|
|
|
|
Status Restore(DB* db) override;
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
Status Clean();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::string GetTempPathForFilename(const std::string& filename);
|
|
|
|
std::string GetPathForFilename(const std::string& filename);
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
static const std::string kLatestBasename;
|
|
|
|
static const std::string kStateFilenameSuffix;
|
|
|
|
static const std::string kTraceFilenameSuffix;
|
|
|
|
static const std::string kTempFilenamePrefix;
|
|
|
|
static const std::string kTempFilenameSuffix;
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const std::string expected_state_dir_path_;
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
SequenceNumber saved_seqno_ = kMaxSequenceNumber;
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// An `AnonExpectedStateManager` implements an `ExpectedStateManager` backed by
|
|
|
|
// a memory allocation containing data about the expected state of the database.
|
|
|
|
class AnonExpectedStateManager : public ExpectedStateManager {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit AnonExpectedStateManager(size_t max_key, size_t num_column_families);
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-07 21:40:46 +00:00
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::SaveAtAndAfter()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This implementation returns `Status::NotSupported` since we do not
|
|
|
|
// currently have a need to keep history of expected state within a process.
|
|
|
|
Status SaveAtAndAfter(DB* /* db */) override {
|
|
|
|
return Status::NotSupported();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-15 20:53:32 +00:00
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::HasHistory()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
bool HasHistory() override { return false; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// See `ExpectedStateManager::Restore()` API doc.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This implementation returns `Status::NotSupported` since we do not
|
|
|
|
// currently have a need to keep history of expected state within a process.
|
|
|
|
Status Restore(DB* /* db */) override { return Status::NotSupported(); }
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-28 21:12:23 +00:00
|
|
|
// Requires external locking preventing concurrent execution with any other
|
|
|
|
// member function.
|
|
|
|
Status Open() override;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#endif // GFLAGS
|