From 73bd91eca8721df1b841f247c35d620981d74e66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: eabdullin Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 16:47:05 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] - Fix performance regression with indexes --- SOURCES/libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch | 221 +++++++++++++++++++ SPECS/libldb.spec | 12 +- 2 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 SOURCES/libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch diff --git a/SOURCES/libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch b/SOURCES/libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5bae0c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/SOURCES/libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +From 1944fcf4b7e5ab4cf580e17031918ba5f441902b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Douglas Bagnall +Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:05:49 +1200 +Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ldb_kv_index: dn_list load sub transaction can re-use + keys +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit + +We don't want to modify the original list, but we can reuse the keys +if we treat them as immutable and don't free them. That makes it a lot +quicker if there are many keys (i.e. where an index is useful) and may +sub-transactions. In particular, it avoids O(n²) talloc_memdups. + +A removed comment that says "We have to free the top level index +memory otherwise we would leak", and this will be addressed in the +next commit. + +BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15590 + +Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall +Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher +(cherry picked from commit 5f0198d69843c864f2b98a7c0c6305ad789a68a0) +--- + lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++----------- + 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c b/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c +index 3f1a847f2b6..fed1033f492 100644 +--- a/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c ++++ b/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c +@@ -446,34 +446,39 @@ static int ldb_kv_dn_list_load(struct ldb_module *module, + * There is an active index sub transaction, and the record was + * found in the primary index transaction cache. A copy of the + * record needs be taken to prevent the original entry being +- * altered, until the index sub transaction is committed. ++ * altered, until the index sub transaction is committed, but we ++ * don't copy the actual values, just the array of struct ldb_val ++ * that points to the values (which are offsets into a GUID array). ++ * ++ * As a reminder, our primary cache is an in-memory tdb that ++ * maps attributes to struct dn_list objects, which point to ++ * the actual index, which is an array of struct ldb_val, the ++ * contents of which are {.data = , .length = ++ * 16}. The array is sorted by GUID data, and these GUIDs are ++ * used to look up index entries in the main database. There ++ * are more layers of indirection than necessary, but what ++ * makes the index useful is we can use a binary search to ++ * find if the array contains a GUID. ++ * ++ * What we do in a sub-transaction is make a copy of the struct ++ * dn_list and the array of struct ldb_val, but *not* of the ++ * .data that they point to. This copy is put into a new ++ * in-memory tdb which masks the primary cache for the duration ++ * of the sub-transaction. ++ * ++ * In an add operation in a sub-transaction, the new ldb_val ++ * is a child of the sub-transaction dn_list, which will ++ * become the main dn_list if the transaction succeeds. ++ * ++ * These acrobatics do not affect read-only operations. + */ +- +- { +- struct ldb_val *dns = NULL; +- size_t x = 0; +- +- dns = talloc_array( +- list, +- struct ldb_val, +- list2->count); +- if (dns == NULL) { +- return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; +- } +- for (x = 0; x < list2->count; x++) { +- dns[x].length = list2->dn[x].length; +- dns[x].data = talloc_memdup( +- dns, +- list2->dn[x].data, +- list2->dn[x].length); +- if (dns[x].data == NULL) { +- TALLOC_FREE(dns); +- return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; +- } +- } +- list->dn = dns; +- list->count = list2->count; ++ list->dn = talloc_memdup(list, ++ list2->dn, ++ talloc_get_size(list2->dn)); ++ if (list->dn == NULL) { ++ return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; + } ++ list->count = list2->count; + return LDB_SUCCESS; + + /* +@@ -3852,9 +3857,7 @@ int ldb_kv_reindex(struct ldb_module *module) + * Copy the contents of the nested transaction index cache record to the + * transaction index cache. + * +- * During this 'commit' of the subtransaction to the main transaction +- * (cache), care must be taken to free any existing index at the top +- * level because otherwise we would leak memory. ++ * This is a 'commit' of the subtransaction to the main transaction cache. + */ + static int ldb_kv_sub_transaction_traverse( + struct tdb_context *tdb, +@@ -3883,8 +3886,7 @@ static int ldb_kv_sub_transaction_traverse( + + /* + * Do we already have an entry in the primary transaction cache +- * If so free it's dn_list and replace it with the dn_list from +- * the secondary cache ++ * If so replace dn_list with the one from the subtransaction. + * + * The TDB and so the fetched rec contains NO DATA, just a + * pointer to data held in memory. +@@ -3897,21 +3899,37 @@ static int ldb_kv_sub_transaction_traverse( + abort(); + } + /* +- * We had this key at the top level. However we made a copy +- * at the sub-transaction level so that we could possibly +- * roll back. We have to free the top level index memory +- * otherwise we would leak ++ * We had this key at the top level, and made a copy ++ * of the dn list for this sub-transaction level that ++ * borrowed the top level GUID data. We can't free the ++ * original dn list just yet. ++ * ++ * In this diagram, ... is the C pointer structure ++ * and --- is the talloc structure (::: is both). ++ * ++ * index_in_top_level ::: dn orig .............. ++ * | | : ++ * | `--GUID array : ++ * | |----- val1 data ++ * ldb_kv `----- val2 data ++ * | : ++ * index_in_subtransaction :: dn copy ..........: ++ * | : ++ * `------------ new val3 data ++ * ++ * So we don't free the index_in_top_level dn list yet, ++ * because we are (probably) borrowing most of its ++ * children. + */ +- if (index_in_top_level->count > 0) { +- TALLOC_FREE(index_in_top_level->dn); +- } + index_in_top_level->dn + = talloc_steal(index_in_top_level, + index_in_subtransaction->dn); + index_in_top_level->count = index_in_subtransaction->count; + return 0; + } +- ++ /* ++ * We found no top level index in the cache, so we put one in. ++ */ + index_in_top_level = talloc(ldb_kv->idxptr, struct dn_list); + if (index_in_top_level == NULL) { + ldb_kv->idxptr->error = LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; +-- +2.46.0 + + +From 70d8b1b2f87cbb16b671d334e46244ba001fbd31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Douglas Bagnall +Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:22:15 +1200 +Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ldb:kv_index: realloc away old dn list + +We can't just free it, because has the GUID index list as a child, and +these are shared by the new dn list (from the subtransaction we are +committing). But if the dn list is long and the main transaction is +long-lived, we can save a lot of memory by turning this dn list into +an almost empty node in the talloc tree. This returns us to roughly +the situation we had prior to the last commit. + +For example, with the repro.sh script on bug 15590 in indexes mode +with 10000 rules, The last 3 commits use this much memory at the end +of an unusually large transaction: + +full talloc report on 'struct ldb_context' (total 4012222 bytes in 90058 blocks) +full talloc report on 'struct ldb_context' (total 2405482219 bytes in 90058 blocks) +full talloc report on 'struct ldb_context' (total 4282195 bytes in 90058 blocks) + +That is, the last commit increased usage 500 fold, and this commit +brings it back to normal. + +BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15590 + +Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall +Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher +(cherry picked from commit 1bf9ede94f0a6b41fb18e880e59a8e390f8c21d3) +--- + lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c | 6 +++++- + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) + +diff --git a/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c b/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c +index fed1033f492..11bdf00dc08 100644 +--- a/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c ++++ b/lib/ldb/ldb_key_value/ldb_kv_index.c +@@ -3919,8 +3919,12 @@ static int ldb_kv_sub_transaction_traverse( + * + * So we don't free the index_in_top_level dn list yet, + * because we are (probably) borrowing most of its +- * children. ++ * children. But we can save memory by discarding the ++ * values and keeping it as an almost empty talloc ++ * node. + */ ++ talloc_realloc(index_in_top_level, ++ index_in_top_level->dn, struct ldb_val *, 1); + index_in_top_level->dn + = talloc_steal(index_in_top_level, + index_in_subtransaction->dn); +-- +2.46.0 + diff --git a/SPECS/libldb.spec b/SPECS/libldb.spec index 4663444..bdadbb7 100644 --- a/SPECS/libldb.spec +++ b/SPECS/libldb.spec @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Name: libldb Version: 2.8.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist}.alma.1 Summary: A schema-less, ldap like, API and database Requires: libtalloc%{?_isa} >= %{talloc_version} Requires: libtdb%{?_isa} >= %{tdb_version} @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ Source1: https://www.samba.org/ftp/ldb/ldb-%{version}.tar.asc Source2: ldb.keyring # Patches +# Patches were taken from: +# https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/libldb/-/commit/dca93045d83451f499c5b31ae9b2fa64262cdfe9 +Patch0: libldb-fix-indexes-performance.patch + BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libtalloc-devel >= %{talloc_version} @@ -124,7 +128,7 @@ Development files for the Python bindings for the LDB library %prep zcat %{SOURCE0} | gpgv2 --quiet --keyring %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE1} - -%autosetup -n ldb-%{version} -p1 +%autosetup -n ldb-%{version} -p3 %build # workaround for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217376 @@ -221,6 +225,9 @@ rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man3/_* %endif %changelog +* Tue Sep 03 2024 Eduard Abdullin - 2.8.0-2.alma.1 +- Fix performance regression with indexes + * Mon Dec 04 2023 Andreas Schneider - 2.8.0-1 - resolves: RHEL-16482 - Rebase version to 2.8.0 @@ -649,4 +656,3 @@ rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man3/_* * Mon Jan 17 2011 Stephen Gallagher - 0.9.22-7 - Update to 0.9.22 (first independent release of libldb upstream) -