Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix rewrite chunk reuse reference #3710

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

yeya24
Copy link
Contributor

@yeya24 yeya24 commented Jan 9, 2021

Signed-off-by: yeya24 [email protected]

Fix buf chunks reuse reference.

s.bufChks[i].Chunk = &lazyPopulatableChunk{cr: s.sReader.cr, m: &s.bufChks[i]}

Here m is a reference to the buffered chunk, we should use a copy instead.
I can reproduce this problem while adding tests for #3707.

  • I added CHANGELOG entry for this change.
  • Change is not relevant to the end user.

Changes

Verification

Copy link
Member

@bwplotka bwplotka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@@ -47,16 +47,17 @@ func (s *lazyPopulateChunkSeriesSet) Next() bool {
continue
}

chks := make([]chunks.Meta, len(s.bufChks))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice, so this is allowing us to not care about locking, but instead allocate more mem, right? 🤗

How benchmarks are looking with this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I didn't get the point. How is it related to locking? Did you mean adding a lock to protect s.bufChks?

I haven't benchmarked this. For a one-off job, memory seems not the highest priority. Maybe we can call GC manually somewhere if the mem usage is too high?

I am not sure if we can fix this without allocating additional memory. What do you think?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I mean, no lock is needed because we copy the slice?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

let's talk offline (:

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry but I think I missed something. Is s.bufChks accessed by multiple goroutines? I thought it is accessed sequentially.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not yet. 🤣

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

;p

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's restart this. Can you explain what problem are you solving? you mentioned in the description that you are fixing some problem, which one? (:

Just creating slices everywhere is not the best idea if we care about efficiency here, we never seen any error around this place on production too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I cannot tell tbh. But with this change the relabel pr works. I guess it is the problem of that pr because the rewrite delete works perfect.
But cannot figure out why.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I cannot tell tbh. But with this change the relabel pr works. I guess it is the problem of that pr because the rewrite delete works perfect.
But cannot figure out why.

Base automatically changed from master to main February 26, 2021 16:30
@yeya24 yeya24 mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2021
2 tasks
@yeya24 yeya24 closed this Mar 10, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants