Relax memory barrier from org.elasticsearch.action.search.AbstractSearchAsyncAction#hasShardResponse #124888
Conversation
…rchAsyncAction#hasShardResponse Make this thing introduce less ordering by only writing as needed. While this may be a tiny performance win, the main motivation for this is to remove one source of unpredictable happens-before across transport and search threads to make bugs more likely to surface despite low thread counts in tests.
original-brownbear
added
>non-issue
:Search Foundations/Search
andreidan
left a comment
andreidan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for working on this Armin.
Can you please update the PR description to reflect the workflow you're trying to modify and what happens-before boundaries you're looking to modify? Like, what kind bugs do you think the current implementation is not surfacing at the moment in the async search flow?
I think I understand what the purpose of this "one liner" change is however, I'd like to be immediately obvious when looking over the PR (I don't think it currently is)
| assert result.getShardIndex() != -1 : "shard index is not set"; | ||
| assert result.getSearchShardTarget() != null : "search shard target must not be null"; | ||
| hasShardResponse.set(true); | ||
| hasShardResponse.compareAndExchangeRelease(false, true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please document why acquire semantics are not needed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm same question here, does it really make sense to document this? We have no data dependency between this field and any other field and we only go false -> true here so if we do a plain read that's good enough, a potentially redundant write is still an improvement of the previous version. Maybe we should come up with a general list of what to use for what instead?
| // than creating an empty response in the search thread pool. | ||
| // Note that, we have to disable this shortcut for queries that create a context (scroll and search context). | ||
| shardRequest.canReturnNullResponseIfMatchNoDocs(hasShardResponse.get() && shardRequest.scroll() == null); | ||
| shardRequest.canReturnNullResponseIfMatchNoDocs(shardRequest.scroll() == null && hasShardResponse.getAcquire()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the order swap of the acquire call and the shardRequest.scroll() call on purpose? If so, can you document why ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm not sure it makes sense to add a comment for this, obviously a potentially shared read is more expensive than a plain read so I figured I'd just switch these two around? :No magic here )
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search-foundations (Team:Search Foundations) |
elasticsearchmachine
added
the
Team:Search Foundations
3 participants
Make this thing introduce less ordering by only writing as needed. While this may be a tiny performance win, the main motivation for this is to remove one source of unpredictable happens-before across transport and search threads to make bugs more likely to surface despite low thread counts in tests.