11GR2 Result Cache Scalability

Result Cache in 11GR1

Two years ago I wrote a series of posts where I explained some of the dynamics around Result Cache latch. To recap, the result cache memory in 11GR1 is backed up by a single RC latch. That in itself wouldn't be so much of an issue (at least relatively to what we've got in reality) had the latch allowed for shared mode gets in case all you have to do is read from the result cache memory.

Alas, the latch turned out to be without shared mode gets. It is going almost without saying that, as concurrency levels increased, that single latch was behaving more and more like to a hand brake (link to a test I've done back then on a 8-way Itanium 2).

Back to the future

When 11GR2 has been released I knew that at some point in time I'll need to go back and revisit this subject. What I did is a couple of quick and dirty runs which came back confirming the same single latch and no shared mode gets so it didn't look like something has really changed. At this point I've decided to revisit it a bit later. This a "bit later" happened just recently.

How bad can it get?

What I wanted to do is get an UltraSPARC T2 and face it against Core i7 980X on a different concurrency levels in order to see how bad it can get. T2 will require quite a lot of parallelism in order to keep up even with a single i7 core. But since all we've got is a single RC latch, I've expected T2 to choke on it quite fast as not only there will be a lot of processes competing for the same latch, the slow single-threaded performance will cause the latch to be held for a much longer periods of time. Performance degradation will be dare.

Result Cache in 11GR2

I used the same test described here as it is targeted at exploiting RC latch weakness and gives me the ability to compare with the old results. I've used 250K lookup iterations. The performance was measured as a total number of lookups performed per second and RC latch statistics were captured for analysis.

Since 980X has 6 cores and 12 threads, the tests were done with 1 to 12 processes running at the same time which also gave an opportunity to see how well HT will scale. Note that I plan to do some further testing on T2 with up to 64 threads but for now I've tested up to 12 threads only as I couldn't get a test window big enough.

UltraSPARC T2 Results

# of processes	Buffer Cache	% linear	Result Cache	% linear
1	4426	100	4555	100
2	8930	100.88	9124	100.15
3	13465	101.41	13731	100.48
4	17886	101.03	18179	99.77
5	22290	100.72	22715	99.74
6	26615	100.22	27012	98.84
7	30659	98.96	30804	96.61
8	34347	97	34910	95.8
9	38389	96.37	39029	95.2
10	42772	96.64	43126	94.68
11	46840	96.21	46936	93.68
12	50667	95.4	50590	92.55

When I saw these numbers for the first time I was quite surprised just how good these results are! UlstraSPARC T2 end up being far from choking and, as a matter of fact, the only position where Result Cache had to give up is the last one. If you reference the results I've obtained on 8-way Itanium 2 in 11GR1 you'll see that Result Cache gave up much earlier and scaled a lot worse.

This certainly looks promising so let's take a look at the RC latch statistic:

# of processes	Gets	Misses	Sleeps	Wait Time
1	500001	0	0	0
2	1000002	40253	1	0
3	1500003	50404	0	0
4	2000004	165116	9	464
5	2500005	211559	5	182
6	3000006	437898	8	6877
7	3500007	805752	52	16556
8	4000008	1214762	20	2980
9	4500009	1775372	188	3140
10	5000010	2244964	491	29568
11	5500011	2552323	664	28011
12	6000012	3019903	1226	60005

There is one astonishing fact about the above number. Let's get some efficiency metrics in place for comparison between these numbers and the ones I've got in 11GR1. I'll use a data point with eight parallel processes as it's the highest reference point I can get across both data sets.

First of all, the number of gets per execution remained the same and equals two gets per exec. If we were going to calculate % miss per get we'll get 28.62% in 11GR1 and 50.33% in 11GR2. In other words, roughly every second get request has resulted in a miss in 11GR2 and every third in 11GR1. It may appear as if this got worse but it's really a consequence from something else.

If we calculate % sleep per miss we'll get 31.36% in 11GR1 but only 0.04% in 11GR2! In other words, the amount of times a process had to go to sleep has drastically decreased. In almost all of the cases the process was able to acquire a latch during a spin without going into a sleep. This also explains why % miss per get in 11GR2 went up and shows that a lowering in efficiency for a single metric does not necessarily indicates a problem, it might happen because some other correlated metric has in fact improved.

There is certainly a sign of a great improvement but what is it? Most likely the improvement is related to the optimization of how long the latch is required to be held. The time required to hold the latch became so small that, in most of the cases, the process is able to acquire it during spinning before being required to go to sleep (i.e. less than _spin_count iterations).

Core i7 980X Results

# of processes	Buffer Cache	% linear	Result Cache	% linear
1	40064	100	43554	100
2	78989	98.58	84602	97.12
3	121753	101.3	127768	97.79
4	159490	99.52	166667	95.67
5	194704	97.2	204583	93.94
6	229709	95.56	240770	92.13
7	231788	82.65	244755	80.28
8	233918	72.98	246305	70.69
9	250836	69.57	260718	66.51
10	267094	66.67	275330	63.22
11	280326	63.61	290084	60.55
12	290416	60.41	293830	56.22

Here Result Cache won across all the positions. We need about 10 processes running on UltraSPARC T2 in order to beat a single process running on i7 980X. Performance gains declined rapidly once we got over six concurrent processes but still we were able to realize some additional performance with 12 threads being about 22% faster than 6 threads.

Latch statistics:

# of processes	Gets	Misses	Sleeps	Wait Time
1	500001	0	0	0
2	1000002	40456	0	0
3	1500003	117893	5	71
4	2000004	209399	0	0
5	2500005	381160	0	0
6	3000006	517745	11	179
7	3500007	913125	20	555
8	4000008	1355226	26	11914
9	4500009	1834112	13	1017
10	5000010	2602801	42	1607
11	5500011	3196415	145	3451
12	6000012	3730467	184	123954

Essentially we're looking at the same phenomena with the amount of sleeps being significantly lower compared to what we observed in 11GR1. With six concurrent processes % miss per get is 17.26% and % sleep per miss is 0.002%! This allowed Result Cache to stay ahead with up to (and including) 12 concurrent processes running.

UltraSPARC T2 vs i7 980X

We'll wrap up with a nice graph showing result cache performance on both UltraSPARC T2 and Core i7 980X:



i7 980X starts almost where 12 UltraSPARC T2 processes ends. Would T2 be able to narrow the gap with more parallel threads? I'll certainly find out.

Conclusion

There is an enormous improvement when it comes to Result Cache scalability in 11GR2. Still it's slower than if we had shared mode gets (or multiple child latches or, even better, both) but it gets very, very close.

Row cache objects latch contention

A data loading process was running on UltraSPARC T2 CPU. To take advantage of the platform architecture (or, I'd rather say, to avoid it's limitations) the loading process has been design to run with a massive amount of parallel query slaves in order to extract the maximum output from CMT architecture.

Every time this data loading process executed, it experienced strange slowdowns on seemingly random points in time. Performance drops were quite substantial, which prompted to do an additional investigation. Upon a closer examination of ASH data, it turned out that all slowdowns were due to latch: row cache objects contention.

Row cache objects latch protects the dictionary cache. The first thing was to figure out whether most of the contention was contributed by a particular row cache objects child latch:

SQL> select latch#, child#, sleeps
  2   from v$latch_children
  3   where name='row cache objects'
  4    and sleeps > 0
  5   order by sleeps desc;
 
    LATCH#     CHILD#     SLEEPS
---------- ---------- ----------
       270          1   24241645
       270          5        523
       270          4         52

The first child certainly doesn't look good when we take the amount of sleeps experienced by it, compared to all the other child latches. Once we have the troublesome child latch identified, we can move on and see which type of dictionary cache it protects:

SQL> select distinct s.kqrstcln latch#,r.cache#,r.parameter name,r.type,r.subordinate#
from v$rowcache r,x$kqrst s
where r.cache#=s.kqrstcid
order by 1,4,5;  2    3    4

 LATCH# CACHE# NAME                              TYPE        SUBORDINATE#
------- ------ --------------------------------- ----------- ------------
      1      3 dc_rollback_segments              PARENT
      2      1 dc_free_extents                   PARENT
      3      4 dc_used_extents                   PARENT
      4      2 dc_segments                       PARENT
      5      0 dc_tablespaces                    PARENT
      6      5 dc_tablespace_quotas              PARENT
      7      6 dc_files                          PARENT
      8     10 dc_users                          PARENT
      8      7 dc_users                          SUBORDINATE            0
      8      7 dc_users                          SUBORDINATE            1
      8      7 dc_users                          SUBORDINATE            2
      9      8 dc_objects                        PARENT
      9      8 dc_object_grants                  SUBORDINATE            0
     10     17 dc_global_oids                    PARENT
     11     12 dc_constraints                    PARENT
     12     13 dc_sequences                      PARENT
     13     16 dc_histogram_defs                 PARENT
     13     16 dc_histogram_data                 SUBORDINATE            0
     13     16 dc_histogram_data                 SUBORDINATE            1
     14     32 kqlsubheap_object                 PARENT
     15     19 dc_table_scns                     PARENT
     15     19 dc_partition_scns                 SUBORDINATE            0
     16     18 dc_outlines                       PARENT
     17     14 dc_profiles                       PARENT
     18     47 realm cache                       PARENT
     18     47 realm auth                        SUBORDINATE            0
     19     48 Command rule cache                PARENT
     20     49 Realm Object cache                PARENT
     20     49 Realm Subordinate Cache           SUBORDINATE            0
     21     46 Rule Set Cache                    PARENT
     22     34 extensible security user and rol  PARENT
     23     35 extensible security principal pa  PARENT
     24     37 extensible security UID to princ  PARENT
     25     36 extensible security principal na  PARENT
     26     33 extensible security principal ne  PARENT
     27     38 XS security class privilege       PARENT
     28     39 extensible security midtier cach  PARENT
     29     44 event map                         PARENT
     30     45 format                            PARENT
     31     43 audit collector                   PARENT
     32     15 global database name              PARENT
     33     20 rule_info                         PARENT
     34     21 rule_or_piece                     PARENT
     34     21 rule_fast_operators               SUBORDINATE            0
     35     23 dc_qmc_ldap_cache_entries         PARENT
     36     52 qmc_app_cache_entries             PARENT
     37     53 qmc_app_cache_entries             PARENT
     38     27 qmtmrcin_cache_entries            PARENT
     39     28 qmtmrctn_cache_entries            PARENT
     40     29 qmtmrcip_cache_entries            PARENT
     41     30 qmtmrctp_cache_entries            PARENT
     42     31 qmtmrciq_cache_entries            PARENT
     43     26 qmtmrctq_cache_entries            PARENT
     44      9 qmrc_cache_entries                PARENT
     45     50 qmemod_cache_entries              PARENT
     46     24 outstanding_alerts                PARENT
     47     22 dc_awr_control                    PARENT
     48     25 SMO rowcache                      PARENT
     49     40 sch_lj_objs                       PARENT
     50     41 sch_lj_oids                       PARENT

60 rows selected.

The first child protects dc_rollback_segments. We can confirm it by referencing data in v$rowcache:

SQL> select parameter, gets
  2   from v$rowcache
  3   order by gets desc;
 
PARAMETER                              GETS
-------------------------------- ----------
dc_rollback_segments              310995555
dc_tablespaces                     76251831
dc_segments                         3912096
dc_users                            2307601
dc_objects                          1460725
dc_users                             608659
dc_histogram_defs                    250666
global database name                  67475
dc_histogram_data                     43098
dc_histogram_data                     14364
dc_global_oids                        14320
outstanding_alerts                     2956
dc_profiles                            2555
dc_awr_control                         1925
dc_object_grants                        745
dc_files                                532
dc_constraints                          201
sch_lj_oids                             158
dc_sequences                            156
dc_table_scns                            20
sch_lj_objs                              18
dc_qmc_ldap_cache_entries                 0
qmc_app_cache_entries                     0
qmc_app_cache_entries                     0
qmtmrcin_cache_entries                    0
qmtmrctn_cache_entries                    0
qmtmrcip_cache_entries                    0
qmtmrctp_cache_entries                    0
qmtmrciq_cache_entries                    0
qmtmrctq_cache_entries                    0
qmrc_cache_entries                        0
qmemod_cache_entries                      0
SMO rowcache                              0
dc_users                                  0
dc_partition_scns                         0
dc_users                                  0
realm auth                                0
Realm Subordinate Cache                   0
rule_or_piece                             0
rule_info                                 0
audit collector                           0
format                                    0
event map                                 0
extensible security midtier cach          0
XS security class privilege               0
extensible security principal ne          0
extensible security principal na          0
extensible security UID to princ          0
extensible security principal pa          0
extensible security user and rol          0
Rule Set Cache                            0
Realm Object cache                        0
Command rule cache                        0
realm cache                               0
dc_outlines                               0
kqlsubheap_object                         0
dc_tablespace_quotas                      0
dc_used_extents                           0
rule_fast_operators                       0
dc_free_extents                           0
 
60 rows selected

The next step is to see whether latch miss source can give us some more hints regarding the issue:

SQL> select "WHERE", sleep_count, location
  2   from v$latch_misses
  3   where parent_name='row cache objects'
  4    and sleep_count > 0;
 
WHERE               SLEEP_COUNT LOCATION
------------------- ----------- ------------------------------
kqrpre: find obj       20612167 kqrpre: find obj
kqrpup                        7 kqrpup
kqrcmt: while loop            1 kqrcmt: while loop
kqrcmt: clear flag            1 kqrcmt: clear flag
kqreqd                  1026837 kqreqd
kqreqd: reget           2602576 kqreqd: reget
 
6 rows selected

Now if you take kqrpre: find obj and plug it into a search on My Oracle Support you'll quickly yield Bug 5749075 High Requests on dc_rollback_segments. Among other things, this note points out at the unusually high number of undo segments being created due to cleanup not able to work properly...

SQL> select count(*) from dba_rollback_segs;
 
  COUNT(*)
----------
     14838

...and this seems to be the case. The only difference is that the issue has been observed on 11GR2 and the bug has been filled against the older versions. Though it was still worth checking in case we were seeing a regression. Indeed, after getting rid of that many undo segments by simply recreating the undo tablespace, the issue, thought not completely vanished, manifested itself a lot less making it's impact relatively insignificant to the process throughput.