314 lines
11 KiB
ReStructuredText
314 lines
11 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
Bounded-index Extensible Hashing (bihash)
|
|||
|
=========================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vpp uses bounded-index extensible hashing to solve a variety of
|
|||
|
exact-match (key, value) lookup problems. Benefits of the current
|
|||
|
implementation:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Very high record count scaling, tested to 100,000,000 records.
|
|||
|
- Lookup performance degrades gracefully as the number of records
|
|||
|
increases
|
|||
|
- No reader locking required
|
|||
|
- Template implementation, it’s easy to support arbitrary (key,value)
|
|||
|
types
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bounded-index extensible hashing has been widely used in databases for
|
|||
|
decades.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bihash uses a two-level data structure:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
::
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+-----------------+
|
|||
|
| bucket-0 |
|
|||
|
| log2_size |
|
|||
|
| backing store |
|
|||
|
+-----------------+
|
|||
|
| bucket-1 |
|
|||
|
| log2_size | +--------------------------------+
|
|||
|
| backing store | --------> | KVP_PER_PAGE * key-value-pairs |
|
|||
|
+-----------------+ | page 0 |
|
|||
|
... +--------------------------------+
|
|||
|
+-----------------+ | KVP_PER_PAGE * key-value-pairs |
|
|||
|
| bucket-2**N-1 | | page 1 |
|
|||
|
| log2_size | +--------------------------------+
|
|||
|
| backing store | ---
|
|||
|
+-----------------+ +--------------------------------+
|
|||
|
| KVP_PER_PAGE * key-value-pairs |
|
|||
|
| page 2**(log2(size)) - 1 |
|
|||
|
+--------------------------------+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Discussion of the algorithm
|
|||
|
---------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This structure has a couple of major advantages. In practice, each
|
|||
|
bucket entry fits into a 64-bit integer. Coincidentally, vpp’s target
|
|||
|
CPU architectures support 64-bit atomic operations. When modifying the
|
|||
|
contents of a specific bucket, we do the following:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Make a working copy of the bucket’s backing storage
|
|||
|
- Atomically swap a pointer to the working copy into the bucket array
|
|||
|
- Change the original backing store data
|
|||
|
- Atomically swap back to the original
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So, no reader locking is required to search a bihash table.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
At lookup time, the implementation computes a key hash code. We use the
|
|||
|
least-significant N bits of the hash to select the bucket.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
With the bucket in hand, we learn log2 (nBackingPages) for the selected
|
|||
|
bucket. At this point, we use the next log2_size bits from the hash code
|
|||
|
to select the specific backing page in which the (key,value) page will
|
|||
|
be found.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Net result: we search **one** backing page, not 2**log2_size pages. This
|
|||
|
is a key property of the algorithm.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When sufficient collisions occur to fill the backing pages for a given
|
|||
|
bucket, we double the bucket size, rehash, and deal the bucket contents
|
|||
|
into a double-sized set of backing pages. In the future, we may
|
|||
|
represent the size as a linear combination of two powers-of-two, to
|
|||
|
increase space efficiency.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To solve the “jackpot case” where a set of records collide under hashing
|
|||
|
in a bad way, the implementation will fall back to linear search across
|
|||
|
2**log2_size backing pages on a per-bucket basis.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To maintain *space* efficiency, we should configure the bucket array so
|
|||
|
that backing pages are effectively utilized. Lookup performance tends to
|
|||
|
change *very little* if the bucket array is too small or too large.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bihash depends on selecting an effective hash function. If one were to
|
|||
|
use a truly broken hash function such as “return 1ULL.” bihash would
|
|||
|
still work, but it would be equivalent to poorly-programmed linear
|
|||
|
search.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We often use cpu intrinsic functions - think crc32 - to rapidly compute
|
|||
|
a hash code which has decent statistics.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bihash Cookbook
|
|||
|
---------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Using current (key,value) template instance types
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It’s quite easy to use one of the template instance types. As of this
|
|||
|
writing, …/src/vppinfra provides pre-built templates for 8, 16, 20, 24,
|
|||
|
40, and 48 byte keys, u8 \* vector keys, and 8 byte values.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
See …/src/vppinfra/{bihash\_\_8}.h
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To define the data types, #include a specific template instance, most
|
|||
|
often in a subsystem header file:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
#include <vppinfra/bihash_8_8.h>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you’re building a standalone application, you’ll need to define the
|
|||
|
various functions by #including the method implementation file in a C
|
|||
|
source file.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The core vpp engine currently uses most if not all of the known bihash
|
|||
|
types, so you probably won’t need to #include the method implementation
|
|||
|
file.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
#include <vppinfra/bihash_template.c>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Add an instance of the selected bihash data structure to e.g. a “main_t”
|
|||
|
structure:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
typedef struct
|
|||
|
{
|
|||
|
...
|
|||
|
BVT (clib_bihash) hash_table;
|
|||
|
or
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t hash_table;
|
|||
|
...
|
|||
|
} my_main_t;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The BV macro concatenate its argument with the value of the preprocessor
|
|||
|
symbol BIHASH_TYPE. The BVT macro concatenates its argument with the
|
|||
|
value of BIHASH_TYPE and the fixed-string “_t”. So in the above example,
|
|||
|
BVT (clib_bihash) generates “clib_bihash_8_8_t”.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you’re sure you won’t decide to change the template / type name
|
|||
|
later, it’s perfectly OK to code “clib_bihash_8_8_t” and so forth.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In fact, if you #include multiple template instances in a single source
|
|||
|
file, you **must** use fully-enumerated type names. The macros stand no
|
|||
|
chance of working.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Initializing a bihash table
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Call the init function as shown. As a rough guide, pick a number of
|
|||
|
buckets which is approximately
|
|||
|
number_of_expected_records/BIHASH_KVP_PER_PAGE from the relevant
|
|||
|
template instance header-file. See previous discussion.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The amount of memory selected should easily contain all of the records,
|
|||
|
with a generous allowance for hash collisions. Bihash memory is
|
|||
|
allocated separately from the main heap, and won’t cost anything except
|
|||
|
kernel PTE’s until touched, so it’s OK to be reasonably generous.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For example:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
my_main_t *mm = &my_main;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t *h;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
h = &mm->hash_table;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_init_8_8 (h, "test", (u32) number_of_buckets,
|
|||
|
(uword) memory_size);
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Add or delete a key/value pair
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Use BV(clib_bihash_add_del), or the explicit type variant:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_kv_8_8_t kv;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t * h;
|
|||
|
my_main_t *mm = &my_main;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t *h;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
h = &mm->hash_table;
|
|||
|
kv.key = key_to_add_or_delete;
|
|||
|
kv.value = value_to_add_or_delete;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_add_del_8_8 (h, &kv, is_add /* 1=add, 0=delete */);
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the delete case, kv.value is irrelevant. To change the value
|
|||
|
associated with an existing (key,value) pair, simply re-add the [new]
|
|||
|
pair.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simple search
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The simplest possible (key, value) search goes like so:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_kv_8_8_t search_kv, return_kv;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t * h;
|
|||
|
my_main_t *mm = &my_main;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t *h;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
h = &mm->hash_table;
|
|||
|
search_kv.key = key_to_add_or_delete;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
if (clib_bihash_search_8_8 (h, &search_kv, &return_kv) < 0)
|
|||
|
key_not_found();
|
|||
|
else
|
|||
|
key_found();
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that it’s perfectly fine to collect the lookup result
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
if (clib_bihash_search_8_8 (h, &search_kv, &search_kv))
|
|||
|
key_not_found();
|
|||
|
etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bihash vector processing
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When processing a vector of packets which need a certain lookup
|
|||
|
performed, it’s worth the trouble to compute the key hash, and prefetch
|
|||
|
the correct bucket ahead of time.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here’s a sketch of one way to write the required code:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dual-loop: \* 6 packets ahead, prefetch 2x vlib_buffer_t’s and 2x packet
|
|||
|
data required to form the record keys \* 4 packets ahead, form 2x record
|
|||
|
keys and call BV(clib_bihash_hash) or the explicit hash function to
|
|||
|
calculate the record hashes. Call 2x BV(clib_bihash_prefetch_bucket) to
|
|||
|
prefetch the buckets \* 2 packets ahead, call 2x
|
|||
|
BV(clib_bihash_prefetch_data) to prefetch 2x (key,value) data pages. \*
|
|||
|
In the processing section, call 2x
|
|||
|
BV(clib_bihash_search_inline_with_hash) to perform the search
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Programmer’s choice whether to stash the hash code somewhere in
|
|||
|
vnet_buffer(b) metadata, or to use local variables.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Single-loop: \* Use simple search as shown above.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Walking a bihash table
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A fairly common scenario to build “show” commands involves walking a
|
|||
|
bihash table. It’s simple enough:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
.. code:: c
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
my_main_t *mm = &my_main;
|
|||
|
clib_bihash_8_8_t *h;
|
|||
|
void callback_fn (clib_bihash_kv_8_8_t *, void *);
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
h = &mm->hash_table;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BV(clib_bihash_foreach_key_value_pair) (h, callback_fn, (void *) arg);
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To nobody’s great surprise: clib_bihash_foreach_key_value_pair iterates
|
|||
|
across the entire table, calling callback_fn with active entries.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bihash table iteration safety
|
|||
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The iterator template “clib_bihash_foreach_key_value_pair” must be used
|
|||
|
with a certain amount of care. For one thing, the iterator template does
|
|||
|
*not* take the bihash hash table writer lock. If your use-case requires
|
|||
|
it, lock the table.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For another, the iterator template is not safe under all conditions:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- It’s **OK to delete** bihash table entries during a table-walk. The
|
|||
|
iterator checks whether the current bucket has been freed after each
|
|||
|
*callback_fn(…)* invocation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- It is **not OK to add** entries during a table-walk.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The add-during-walk case involves a jackpot: while processing a
|
|||
|
key-value-pair in a particular bucket, add a certain number of entries.
|
|||
|
By luck, assume that one or more of the added entries causes the
|
|||
|
**current bucket** to split-and-rehash.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Since we rehash KVP’s to different pages based on what amounts to a
|
|||
|
different hash function, either of these things can go wrong:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- We may revisit previously-visited entries. Depending on how one coded
|
|||
|
the use-case, we could end up in a recursive-add situation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- We may skip entries that have not been visited
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One could build an add-safe iterator, at a significant cost in
|
|||
|
performance: copy the entire bucket, and walk the copy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It’s hard to imagine a worthwhile add-during walk use-case in the first
|
|||
|
place; let alone one which couldn’t be implemented by walking the table
|
|||
|
without modifying it, then adding a set of records.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creating a new template instance
|
|||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creating a new template is easy. Use one of the existing templates as a
|
|||
|
model, and make the obvious changes. The hash and key_compare methods
|
|||
|
are performance-critical in multiple senses.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the key compare method is slow, every lookup will be slow. If the
|
|||
|
hash function is slow, same story. If the hash function has poor
|
|||
|
statistical properties, space efficiency will suffer. In the limit, a
|
|||
|
bad enough hash function will cause large portions of the table to
|
|||
|
revert to linear search.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Use of the best available vector unit is well worth the trouble in the
|
|||
|
hash and key_compare functions.
|