feat: massStoreRunAsynchronous()

[whisperity]

Important

⛔ Blocked by #4318.

This is patch 3 of the Asynchronous Store Protocol (#3672).

Closes #1306. Closes #2417. Closes #3671. Closes #3672.

Motivation

Even though #3167 introduced a socket-level TCP keepalive support into the server's implementation, this was observed multiple times to not be enough to deterministically fix the issues with the CodeChecker store client hanging indefinitely (#3672) when the server takes a long time processing the to-be-stored data. The underlying reasons are not entirely clear and the issue only pops up sporadically, but we did observe a few similar scenarios (such as multi-million report storage from analysing LLVM and then storing between data centres) where it almost reliably reproduces.

The symptoms (even with a configured keepalive) generally include the server not becoming notified about the client's disconnect, while the client process is hung on a low-level system call read(4, ...), trying to get the Thrift response of massStoreRun() from the HTTP socket. Even if the server finishes the storage processing "in time" and sends the Thrift reply, it never reaches the client, which means it never exits from the waiting, which means it keeps either the terminal or, worse, a CI script occupied, blocking execution.

Solution, part 1. Backgrounding massStoreRun()

To solve this, I separated the previously blocking execution of massStoreRun(), which was done in the context of the "API handler process", into a foreground and a background part, exploiting the background task library support implemented in #4317.

The foreground part remains executed in the context of the API handler process, and deals with receiving and unpacking the to-be-stored data, saving configuration and checking constraints that are cheap to check.
The foreground part can report issues synchronously to the client.

Everything else that was part of the previous massStoreRun() pipeline, as implemented by the mass_store_run.MassStoreRun class becomes a background task, such as the parsing of the uploaded reports and the storing of data to the database.
This background task, implemented using the new library, executes in a separate background worker process, and can not communicate directly with the user.
Errors are logged to the comments fields.

Compatibility with older clients

The massStoreRun() API handler will continue to work as previously, and block while waiting for the background task to terminate, but even on the server side, it will use the new facilities to do so. In case of an error, it synchronously reports a RequestFailed exception, passing the comments field (into which the background process had written the exception details) to the client.

While this ensures compatibility with older clients, it is also completely "compatible" with and does not solve the previously seen bug!

Removal of special error tags from the transmission

Due to the inability of most of the exceptions previously caused in MassStoreRun to "escape" as RequestFaileds, some parts of the API had been deprecated and removed.

Namely, ErrorCode.SOURCE_FILE and ErrorCode.REPORT_FORMAT are no longer sent over the API.

This does not break existing behaviour and does not cause incompatibility with clients: in cases where the request exceptions were raised earlier, now a different type of exception is raised, but the error message still precisely explains the problem as it did previously.

Solution, part 2. Exposing massStoreRunAsynchronous()

This is the "more proper solution" foreshadowed in #4039.

Based on Part 1.'s (and earlier patches') achievements, I added the server-side implementation for massStoreRunAsynchronous(), which is almost trivial at this point: it performs the same spawning of the now-backgrounded task instance for the store processing and returns the task token via the API.

At this point, the API handler process can fully return and start waiting for the next request.
As an added benefit, the memory associated with the potentially huge store ZIP (under the b64zip parameter of massStoreRun() and the zipfile_blob parameter of massStoreRunAsynchronous()) is also freed at this point, because the contents of the ZIP is already extracted to storage, freeing not just "available workers" as a resource, but "memory" as well!

The CodeChecker store client now uses the new API, receives the task token, and starts to poll the server (with CodeChecker cmd serverside-tasks --await --token TOKEN...'s infrastructure, as already established in #4318) for the status of the task.
CodeChecker store still blocks the terminal (or the executing script) until the store reaches a termination status.

CodeChecker store --detach

Another benefit of putting the entire report processing logic put into the background (and removed from the API control flow) on the server is that the client can now safely close the TCP socket and disengage from the API once the server reports that it is ready to process the data. Notably, the API communication that initiates the store process, massStoreRunAsynchronous(), terminates when the task token is sent back to the client. Everything afterwards happens under new communication requests established by the client.

This immediately allowed me to implement a small but powerful new feature into the client, --detach: if the user so wishes to NOT await the status of the server-side processing automatically, they can instruct the CodeChecker store client to exit and return control to the terminal/script, once the server-side operation had begun.

This is extremely useful in situations where running the store operation is the last action to be taken and no further commands (such as cmd results or cmd diff) are executed which might rely on the "success" or "completion" or "fulfilment" of the act. Consider a CI system which only updates the reports from the master branch in a scheduled way. These jobs can be sped up (by virtue of returning the entire allocated CI entity to a resting state) by providing --detach.

[dkrupp]

I tested this patch and it seems to me that the storage performance is lower than with the 6.24.1 release.
On single storage thread storing the same set of xerces reports with 6.24.1 server the storage time is ~9s (on the client) and with this version is around ~19s. See the details below.

Did you observe similar behaviour? What could be the reason?

Otherwise the queue handling and the server seemed stable.

Reproduction:

1. 6.24.1 client 6.24.1 server:

time CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports --url http://localhost:8002/Default -f -n testing
----======== Summary ========----
-------------------------------------------------------
Number of processed analyzer result files        | 700 
Number of analyzer reports                       | 1322
Number of source files                           | 0   
Number of source files with source code comments | 0   
Number of blame information files                | 0   
-------------------------------------------------------
----=================----
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:27] - Compressing report zip file...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:27] - Compressing report zip file done (8.3MiB / 238.5KiB).
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:27] - Storing results to the server...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:28] - Storage finished successfully.

real	0m9.046s
user	0m9.662s
sys	0m1.812s

2. 6.24.1 client this patch version server

ime CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports --url http://localhost:8001/Default -f -n testing 
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:29] - Storing analysis results for run 'testing

----======== Summary ========----
-------------------------------------------------------
Number of processed analyzer result files        | 700 
Number of analyzer reports                       | 1322
Number of source files                           | 0   
Number of source files with source code comments | 0   
Number of blame information files                | 0   
-------------------------------------------------------
----=================----
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:29] - Compressing report zip file...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:29] - Compressing report zip file done (8.3MiB / 238.8KiB).
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:29] - Storing results to the server...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:29] - Storage finished successfully.

real	0m19.856s
user	0m9.905s
sys	0m1.585s

3. this version client - this version server

time CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports --url http://localhost:8001/Default -n testing
----======== Summary ========----
-------------------------------------------------------
Number of processed analyzer result files        | 700 
Number of analyzer reports                       | 1322
Number of source files                           | 0   
Number of source files with source code comments | 0   
Number of blame information files                | 0   
-------------------------------------------------------
----=================----
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Compressing report zip file...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Compressing report zip file done (8.3 MiB / 238.8 KiB).
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Storing results to the server ...
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Reports submitted to the server for processing.
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Checking local passwords or tokens in /home/ednikru/.codechecker.passwords.json
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Checking for local valid sessions.
[INFO 2024-09-23 18:30] - Storing the reports finished successfully.

real	0m15.813s
user	0m9.852s
sys	0m1.668s

------------------------
I also tested this with the performance tester tool
`python3 /workspace/test/codechecker/scripts/test/run_server_performance_test.py /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports --url http://localhost:8001/Default -o /tmp/codechecker_performance_625.log -u 10 -r 1`

iff /tmp/codechecker_performance_6241.log /tmp/codechecker_performance_625.log
2,11c2,11
< 2,15.245582,6.167334,3.281972,0.927049,0.845769
< 5,15.377179,5.008921,3.431427,1.165954,0.953085
< 9,15.298618,6.457655,3.51786,1.46451,3.273755
< 4,18.013311,5.154086,4.70034,0.84808,2.343666
< 8,16.559763,5.145486,3.394403,1.334375,0.92755
< 3,19.000909,5.082276,3.441946,1.04042,0.845659
< 7,20.805081,4.975545,3.223493,0.853344,1.445693
< 10,24.562988,5.192637,3.201599,0.960122,0.814222
< 1,10.985903,5.026051,3.286415,1.072666,0.704679
< 6,11.313735,4.791362,3.351084,0.939348,0.935826

7,29.80368,5.451236,4.618323,2.434601,2.163928
8,40.068657,6.56116,4.520448,2.319387,1.735899
10,40.240583,5.458642,3.72705,1.445456,1.494371
4,41.033482,5.581793,3.885928,1.479313,1.115965
2,45.766335,5.268967,3.681706,2.609846,1.123228
5,55.890535,5.370175,3.754132,1.426652,1.461334
1,45.691527,5.271719,3.534699,1.287154,1.023857
3,60.307092,5.332355,3.763976,1.282365,0.998435
6,55.516671,5.226814,3.734352,1.628265,1.058211

[whisperity]

I tested this patch and it seems to me that the storage performance is lower than with the 6.24.1 release.
On single storage thread storing the same set of xerces reports with 6.24.1 server the storage time is ~9s (on the client) and with this version is around ~19s.

The client is sleeping, as expected (as evident from wall clock increase but same user and sys time, also, prefer using /usr/bin/time -v instead of shell built-in time, it gives more detailed results).

Did you observe similar behaviour?

Not to a measurable extent, but I was not doing extremely strict measurements either.

What could be the reason?

It's a scheduling artefact. Consider that the original storage is about 10 seconds long. Now, let's suppose the unzipping takes virtually 0 time. What will happen, is that the client sends the mSRA() request, and gets the response, then sends a poll. This poll will naturally say RUNNING as the server just started. We are in the 1st second. So the client goes to sleep for 5 seconds (the current default minimum probe interval, as introduced in the await_task_completion() library function of #4318). In the 6th second, the storage is still running. So the server says RUNNING, but there was likely forward progress. Because there was observed forward progress, the next poll will be quicker, but still limited by the minimum, so the client goes to sleep for another 5 seconds. In the second ~15 moment (+- rounding and accuracy errors), the client wakes up, sends a request, and now receives the answer that the server had completed with the task.

What could also happen (but likely did not happen here; also, please try with --verbose debug on both server and clientside, I think I've left plenty of detail logging for the sleep behaviour!) is that in second 15, the client wakes up, sends a poll, but still receives RUNNING because the server is still committing the database changes. However, a lot of time has passed since the last "heartbeat" signal (because mSRA() stops heartbeating right before the last commit, in order to ignore cancel requests once the fake checkers are potentially going in...). So the client will go back to sleep, but because it did not observe a quick enough heartbeat (aka. "no forward progress on the server's side"), it will bump the new sleep interval by 1 second, up to 6. So in second "15", it will go into a 6 second sleep, and wake up again at 21 seconds from start, at which point it will receive the COMPLETED status.

The good news is that the minimum and maximum threshold for the polling sleep value can be tinkered with, both at the library level, and at the call site in store.py. So if you have plenty of real workloads available (I did not have the time to run a whole lot of performance tests on this), you can come up with better thresholds.

This explains both the observations of 15-sec wall clock in the "both server and client patched" scenario, and the "basically 20-sec" wall clock in the "server patched, client not" scenario. N.B., that using a "legacy" client, and calling mSR(), the sleeping is done in the serverside API handler, and all of this fancy "variable resistor" behaviour of the sleep time calculation is skipped: there is a 5-sec sleep rhythm, but that's (as usual on non-realtime kernels) not a hard accurate thing. So the server is, once again, sleeping in 5 sec increments, basically mirroring what the client is close to doing.

        while True:
            time.sleep(5)
            t = self._task_manager.get_task_record(token)

.get_task_record() is a database synchronisation operation. The server maintains no internal cache and state about tasks (this is on purpose, an extra cache here would just be an extra thing to go out of synch...). So this t variable will only contain the COMPLETED status once the background thread implementation exited, once the abstract executor set, wrote, flushed, and committed the status update in the database. If for any reason the "5 second" (again, not a hard deadline!) triggers before or during these moments, the database will still say RUNNING, and you're unlucky enough to trigger another 5 second wait even if waiting 7 milliseconds would've been enough. We can't deterministically know this, and optimising around this would get incredibly clunky code that's prone to breaking on every third call.

Asymptotically, min=1sec could also be viable, but in large deployments, that would result in a lot of flooding early on. The optimisation question is, do we expect small or large workloads?

Because for large workloads (where the server-side processing takes minutes, maybe tens of minutes), these changes will not be so impactful. It's only this impactful at, let's say, academically trivial workloads.

[dkrupp]

I tested this implementation further with larger storages: ~156000 reports.

The storage takes ~9 minutes on the 6.24.1 server and 10 minutes 46 seconds on the new server.
this ~10% performance degradation could be acceptable taking into consideration the advantages of this
solution.

So I approve the PR.

See the detailed results below.

6.24.1 client 6.24.1 server - postgresql
time CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports_full/ --url http://localhost:8002/test -f -n xerces_test_full_old_client2 --verbose debug

----======== Summary ========----
---------------------------------------------------------
Number of processed analyzer result files        | 698   
Number of analyzer reports                       | 156340
Number of source files                           | 750   
Number of source files with source code comments | 0     
Number of blame information files                | 749   
---------------------------------------------------------
----=================----
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:45:21] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:642 assemble_zip() - Compressing report zip file...
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:45:28] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:651 assemble_zip() - Compressing report zip file done (329.0MiB / 8.3MiB).
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:45:29] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:950 main() - Storing results to the server...
[DEBUG][2024-10-02 15:45:29] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:831 _timeout_watchdog() - Set up timer for 3600 seconds (1:00:00) for PID 3520627
[DEBUG][2024-10-02 15:52:16] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:844 _timeout_watchdog() - Timeout timer of 3600 seconds (1:00:00) for PID 3520627 stopped.
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:52:16] {system} [3520627] <140716288374592> - store.py:1007 main() - Storage finished successfully.

real	8m58.746s
user	5m35.075s
sys	3m48.688s



6.25.0 client - 6.25.0 server - postgresql
--------------------------------------------------------
time CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports_full/ --url http://localhost:8001/test -f -n xerces_test_full_625_client --verbose debu
real	10m42.144s
user	5m30.789s
sys	3m43.897s



6.24.1 client  6.25.0 server - postgresql
time CodeChecker store /workspace/test-projects/xerces-c/reports_full/ --url http://localhost:8001/test -f -n xerces_test_full_6241_client --verbose debug
----======== Summary ========----
---------------------------------------------------------
Number of processed analyzer result files        | 698   
Number of analyzer reports                       | 156340
Number of source files                           | 750   
Number of source files with source code comments | 0     
Number of blame information files                | 749   
---------------------------------------------------------
----=================----
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:59:22] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:642 assemble_zip() - Compressing report zip file...
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:59:30] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:651 assemble_zip() - Compressing report zip file done (329.0MiB / 8.3MiB).
[INFO][2024-10-02 15:59:31] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:950 main() - Storing results to the server...
[DEBUG][2024-10-02 15:59:31] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:831 _timeout_watchdog() - Set up timer for 3600 seconds (1:00:00) for PID 3536331
[DEBUG][2024-10-02 16:08:06] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:844 _timeout_watchdog() - Timeout timer of 3600 seconds (1:00:00) for PID 3536331 stopped.
[INFO][2024-10-02 16:08:06] {system} [3536331] <140270833850176> - store.py:1007 main() - Storage finished successfully.

real	10m46.701s
user	5m32.831s
sys	3m45.934s

[dkrupp]

I think the concept of executing these long lasting storages as background jobs is very good as it makes it very clear to administrators what storage jobs are executed in parallel, gives a good overview of the storage times and it makes fixes the long resetting TCP connections problem too.

I think it would be a valuable addition in the future to be able to query the latest queuing time, to be able to detect (for operators) if the storage queu is very long and maybe increasing.

LGTM, nice work!

[dkrupp]

Closing this PR as it was merged in these PRs
#4603
#4609