experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance #5228

Aaronontheweb · 2021-08-26T15:53:10Z

Per @to11mtm 's reporting in our Gitter chat room...

RemotePingPong

Before

OSVersion:                         Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
ProcessorCount:                    16
ClockSpeed:                        0 MHZ
Actor Count:                       32
Messages sent/received per client: 200000  (2e5)
Is Server GC:                      True
Thread count:                      111

Num clients, Total [msg], Msgs/sec, Total [ms]
         1,  200000,     96154,    2080.77
         5, 1000000,    187442,    5335.46
        10, 2000000,    188307,   10621.24
        15, 3000000,    190767,   15726.12
        20, 4000000,    189988,   21054.78
        25, 5000000,    188694,   26498.56
        30, 6000000,    188543,   31823.73

After

OSVersion:                         Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
ProcessorCount:                    16                             
ClockSpeed:                        0 MHZ                          
Actor Count:                       32                             
Messages sent/received per client: 200000  (2e5)                  
Is Server GC:                      True                           
Thread count:                      111                            
                                                                  
Num clients, Total [msg], Msgs/sec, Total [ms]                    
         1,  200000,    117717,    1699.19                        
         5, 1000000,    197278,    5069.24                        
        10, 2000000,    196677,   10169.66                        
        15, 3000000,    194075,   15458.38                        
        20, 4000000,    194657,   20549.84                        
        25, 5000000,    193641,   25821.94                        
        30, 6000000,    191712,   31297.06

Sharding Performance

Before

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.1, OS=Windows 10.0.19041.1165 (2004/May2020Update/20H1)
AMD Ryzen 7 1700, 1 CPU, 16 logical and 8 physical cores
.NET SDK=5.0.302
  [Host]     : .NET Core 3.1.17 (CoreCLR 4.700.21.31506, CoreFX 4.700.21.31502), X64 RyuJIT
  Job-RAVSYY : .NET Core 3.1.17 (CoreCLR 4.700.21.31506, CoreFX 4.700.21.31502), X64 RyuJIT

InvocationCount=1  UnrollFactor=1

Method	StateMode	MsgCount	Mean	Error	StdDev
SingleRequestResponseToLocalEntity	Persistence	10000	114.761 ms	2.2856 ms	4.2364 ms
StreamingToLocalEntity	Persistence	10000	5.394 ms	0.4011 ms	1.1574 ms
SingleRequestResponseToRemoteEntity	Persistence	10000	4,348.561 ms	22.9590 ms	21.4758 ms
StreamingToRemoteEntity	Persistence	10000	505.702 ms	9.7041 ms	11.9176 ms
SingleRequestResponseToLocalEntity	DData	10000	112.387 ms	2.2285 ms	3.0504 ms
StreamingToLocalEntity	DData	10000	5.114 ms	0.2683 ms	0.7436 ms
SingleRequestResponseToRemoteEntity	DData	10000	4,396.789 ms	18.9920 ms	17.7651 ms
StreamingToRemoteEntity	DData	10000	512.592 ms	10.1481 ms	10.4213 ms

After

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.1, OS=Windows 10.0.19041.1165 (2004/May2020Update/20H1)
AMD Ryzen 7 1700, 1 CPU, 16 logical and 8 physical cores
.NET SDK=5.0.302
  [Host]     : .NET Core 3.1.17 (CoreCLR 4.700.21.31506, CoreFX 4.700.21.31502), X64 RyuJIT
  Job-HYNWDT : .NET Core 3.1.17 (CoreCLR 4.700.21.31506, CoreFX 4.700.21.31502), X64 RyuJIT

InvocationCount=1  UnrollFactor=1

Method	StateMode	MsgCount	Mean	Error	StdDev
SingleRequestResponseToLocalEntity	Persistence	10000	129.718 ms	3.2318 ms	9.427 ms
StreamingToLocalEntity	Persistence	10000	6.162 ms	0.5868 ms	1.721 ms
SingleRequestResponseToRemoteEntity	Persistence	10000	4,305.384 ms	34.0898 ms	31.888 ms
StreamingToRemoteEntity	Persistence	10000	511.976 ms	10.0823 ms	12.382 ms
SingleRequestResponseToLocalEntity	DData	10000	117.223 ms	2.3304 ms	5.628 ms
StreamingToLocalEntity	DData	10000	5.616 ms	0.4011 ms	1.164 ms
SingleRequestResponseToRemoteEntity	DData	10000	4,519.704 ms	81.3376 ms	76.083 ms
StreamingToRemoteEntity	DData	10000	506.318 ms	5.9951 ms	5.608 ms

Aaronontheweb · 2021-08-26T15:53:50Z

<html>
<body>
<!--StartFragment-->

SingleRequestResponseToRemoteEntity | DData | 10000 | 4,519.704 ms | 81.3376 ms | 76.083 ms
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --


<!--EndFragment-->
</body>
</html>

STDDEV is way up here - going to re-run it.

Aaronontheweb · 2021-08-26T16:05:28Z

@to11mtm should we just fix the == operator to do the right thing?

to11mtm · 2021-08-26T16:30:30Z

@to11mtm should we just fix the == operator to do the right thing?

That would probably be the better thing to do TBH.

Zetanova · 2021-08-27T08:05:20Z

Transport.Addresses.Any(a => a.Equals(address)) is for sure slower as a foreach in a hot-path
I don't know how ofter the Any will be executed or if the compiler makes some magic with it.
If there is no magic then the branch and a foreach is faster then a Linq with scope and no branch

And maybe there is a fast check to return early?

public bool HasAddress(Address address)
{
            if(address.Equals(_local.RootPath.Address) || address.Equals(RootPath.Address))
                  return true;
            //maybe there is a fast check to abort here

            foreach(var a in Transport.Addresses)
                  if(a.Equals(address)) return true;

            return false;
}

Zetanova · 2021-08-28T04:10:43Z

The foreach is not good too.
It is creating a try-catch

Because the Transport.Addresses is of type ISet

the simple and obvious Contains method is the best fit

public bool HasAddress(Address address)
{
         retrun address.Equals(_local.RootPath.Address) || address.Equals(RootPath.Address) 
                    || Transport.Addresses.Contains(address);
}

see: https://sharplab.io/#gist:b0a2cc23e7748f71577070b2748e462e

Aaronontheweb · 2021-08-30T17:20:40Z

Great suggestions @Zetanova - I'll update the PR with some numbers for those later this week.

Aaronontheweb · 2021-08-31T20:58:14Z

OSVersion:                         Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
ProcessorCount:                    16
ClockSpeed:                        0 MHZ
Actor Count:                       32
Messages sent/received per client: 200000  (2e5)
Is Server GC:                      True
Thread count:                      111

Num clients, Total [msg], Msgs/sec, Total [ms]
         1,  200000,    106952,    1870.69
         5, 1000000,    197981,    5051.82
        10, 2000000,    198709,   10065.92
        15, 3000000,    197239,   15210.15
        20, 4000000,    196329,   20374.52
        25, 5000000,    196634,   25428.24
        30, 6000000,    195015,   30767.75

Final numbers look good to me!

to11mtm · 2021-08-31T22:19:58Z

src/core/Akka/Actor/Address.cs

@@ -256,7 +258,8 @@ public Address WithPort(int? port = null)
 /// <returns><c>true</c> if both addresses are not equal; otherwise <c>false</c></returns>
 public static bool operator !=(Address left, Address right)
 {
- return !Equals(left, right);
+ return !ReferenceEquals(left, right) &&
+ (left?.Equals(right) ?? true);


This looks incorrect. if left equals right we should return false. (I think the null coalesce is making it hard to infer here)

Yeah based on the test suite I probably did that wrong

Ah, I thought I was !-ing the entire statement, not just the first clause.

src/core/Akka/Actor/Address.cs

Zetanova · 2021-08-31T23:13:29Z

The equals itself is not optimal, the Port nullable can be better compared.

The EqualityComparer<Address>.Default.Equlas(left, right) can be used,
it should have a better perf then a 2x branching with an own code (not sure)

See code at:
https://sharplab.io/#gist:f028291550b1c641019aca408efdbc3a

Aaronontheweb · 2021-09-01T14:02:23Z

The equals itself is not optimal, the Port nullable can be better compared.

The EqualityComparer<Address>.Default.Equlas(left, right) can be used,
it should have a better perf then a 2x branching with an own code (not sure)

See code at:
https://sharplab.io/#gist:f028291550b1c641019aca408efdbc3a

  public bool Equals(Address other)
    {
        return other != null
            && string.Equals(_host, other._host) 
            && string.Equals(_system, other._system) 
            && string.Equals(_protocol, other._protocol)
            && (_port ?? 0) == (other._port ?? 0);
    }

You want the port comparison to go first - as it's the fastest route to exit the loop for two values who are not equal. You also still want to check for equality by reference in this method in case it's called directly via the .Equals method

Aaronontheweb · 2021-09-01T14:26:01Z

Final numbers:

OSVersion:                         Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
ProcessorCount:                    16
ClockSpeed:                        0 MHZ
Actor Count:                       32
Messages sent/received per client: 200000  (2e5)
Is Server GC:                      True
Thread count:                      112

Num clients, Total [msg], Msgs/sec, Total [ms]
         1,  200000,    108755,    1839.86
         5, 1000000,    200201,    4995.26
        10, 2000000,    199442,   10028.27
        15, 3000000,    198900,   15083.07
        20, 4000000,    199552,   20045.01
        25, 5000000,    198413,   25200.80
        30, 6000000,    195224,   30734.52

Looks to me like the technical errors have been resolved as well.

to11mtm · 2021-09-03T03:55:21Z

The equals itself is not optimal, the Port nullable can be better compared.

The EqualityComparer<Address>.Default.Equlas(left, right) can be used,
it should have a better perf then a 2x branching with an own code (not sure)

See code at:
https://sharplab.io/#gist:f028291550b1c641019aca408efdbc3a

I'm not sure... the ASM generated looks too sparse for what we're doing here. I'm not sure if Sharplab is acccurate here.

I would expect something like this would be the 'best' way to do ==:

    public static bool operator ==(Address left, Address right)
    {
            if (left != null) {
                return left.Equals(right);
            }
            return right == null;
    }

This is based on how .Equals() itself is implemented in GenericEqualityComparer, cuts out a branch since our .Equals will do the correct thing if right is null, and will be Devirted (Whereas GenericEqualityComparer AFAIK is virt calls since it's on the generic interface, unless there's some compiler magic I'm unaware of)

Aaronontheweb · 2021-09-03T15:24:16Z

Thanks @to11mtm - I'll make that change and then wrap this PR up.

Aaronontheweb · 2021-09-03T15:37:22Z

@Zetanova you've been a great help on this PR btw - really appreciate your great feedback.

…/github.com/Aaronontheweb/akka.net into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

Zetanova · 2021-09-07T20:54:30Z

I looked at the whole class

The RootPath.Address is the same as _local.RootPath.Address
currently the equals will perform twice on the same address

public bool HasAddress(Address address)
{
         retrun address.Equals(_local.RootPath.Address) || Transport.Addresses.Contains(address);
}

then the cache extension instances do not need to be volatile,
every memory barrier in a hot path should be avoided:

private ActorRefResolveThreadLocalCache _actorRefResolveThreadLocalCache;
private ActorPathThreadLocalCache _actorPathThreadLocalCache;

public virtual void Init(ActorSystemImpl system)
{
            _system = system;

            //moved up
            _actorRefResolveThreadLocalCache = ActorRefResolveThreadLocalCache.For(system);
            _actorPathThreadLocalCache = ActorPathThreadLocalCache.For(system);

            _local.Init(system);

            //rest of code
}

Then ActorPath.TryParse is getting called multiple times (with and without cache)

I made an draft at #5273
It is still WIP

Aaronontheweb · 2021-09-07T21:02:29Z

The RootPath.Address is the same as _local.RootPath.Address currently the equals will perform twice on the same address

Not a huge deal from a perf point of view - ReferenceEquals call is about 1-2 ns.

Zetanova · 2021-09-07T21:26:56Z

@Aaronontheweb Why is there a AddressCache that caches the Address with the key as ActorPathString and an ActorPathCache that makes the same?
Both using ActorPathString as the key and storing near the same information

Zetanova · 2021-09-07T22:48:46Z

@Aaronontheweb I made some improvements, volatile should/can be removed from private Internals _internals; too.
This makes in a hot-path a difference.

Then I found a way to remove AddressCache and use the same ActorPathCache as RemoteActorRefProvider

experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance

98e564d

Aaronontheweb added akka-remote perf labels Aug 26, 2021

implemented suggestions

3e35d6e

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

60fa456

Aaronontheweb added this to the 1.4.25 milestone Aug 31, 2021

fixed Address.== and Address.!=

8176e60

to11mtm reviewed Aug 31, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/core/Akka/Actor/Address.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fixed operators and generic equals

58019a3

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

ebc544e

Aaronontheweb mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2021

added LRU cache support to inbound Akka.Remote IActorRef resolution #5240

Merged

Aaronontheweb requested a review from to11mtm September 1, 2021 17:15

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

ee6162b

Aaronontheweb added 3 commits September 3, 2021 10:43

cleaned up Address.==

8d9dc39

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

dee0c52

fixed Address.==

054e451

Aaronontheweb added 2 commits September 3, 2021 11:45

Merge branch 'perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve' of https:/…

985df72

…/github.com/Aaronontheweb/akka.net into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

421e9f9

Aaronontheweb enabled auto-merge (squash) September 6, 2021 22:59

Aaronontheweb added 3 commits September 7, 2021 08:52

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

b6bcd5e

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

be9ee8b

Merge branch 'dev' into perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve

b8c69f8

Aaronontheweb disabled auto-merge September 8, 2021 13:22

Aaronontheweb merged commit 8f168fc into akkadotnet:dev Sep 8, 2021

Aaronontheweb deleted the perf/RemoteActorRefProvider-Address-resolve branch September 8, 2021 13:23

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance #5228

experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance #5228

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

to11mtm commented Aug 26, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 27, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 28, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 30, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 31, 2021

to11mtm Aug 31, 2021

Aaronontheweb Sep 1, 2021

Aaronontheweb Sep 1, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 31, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 1, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 1, 2021

to11mtm commented Sep 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 3, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 3, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 7, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance #5228

experimenting with RemoteActorRefProvider address resolution performance #5228

Conversation

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

RemotePingPong

Before

After

Sharding Performance

Before

After

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 26, 2021

to11mtm commented Aug 26, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 27, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 28, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 30, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Aug 31, 2021

to11mtm Aug 31, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Aaronontheweb Sep 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Aaronontheweb Sep 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zetanova commented Aug 31, 2021 • edited Loading

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 1, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 1, 2021

to11mtm commented Sep 3, 2021 • edited Loading

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 3, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 3, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

Aaronontheweb commented Sep 7, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

Zetanova commented Sep 7, 2021

Zetanova commented Aug 31, 2021 •

edited

Loading

to11mtm commented Sep 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading