filters/auth: use sync.Map for tokeninfo cache #3267
Conversation
AlexanderYastrebov
commented
Oct 9, 2024
AlexanderYastrebov
commented
- use sync.Map for tokeninfo cache to avoid synchronizing all callers on a single mutex
- evict stale entries periodically instead of least recently used
- store token expiration time instead of creation time
AlexanderYastrebov
added
the
major
AlexanderYastrebov
force-pushed
the
filters/auth/tokeninfocache-syncmap
branch
from
67cd561 to
813bf2a
Compare
| info: info, | ||
| href: c.history.PushFront(token), | ||
| func (c *tokeninfoCache) evictLoop() { | ||
| ticker := time.NewTicker(time.Minute) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense this time.Minute configurable at the next PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure which other value would be good.
| mu sync.Mutex | ||
| cache map[string]*entry | ||
| // least recently used token at the end | ||
| history *list.List |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see you would like to keep tokeninfo filter lock-free, that is why you are thinking about not keeping history any more.
However, there is a data structure which acts like a list and has lock-free implementations (at least in theory). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list
Do you think it makes sense to try to obtain this data structure to have lock-free history access and not evict random items?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was used to evict oldest entries when cache grows over the limit.
This change simplifies this by simply removing random items if number of cached items is over the size limit.
It also adds a metric for monitoring.
In production setup one should have cache size set large enough such that entries are never evicted due to overflow. This way there is no need to complicate eviction algorithm, keep access history or use clever datastructures.
|
|
||
| // Evict random entries until the cache size is within limits | ||
| if c.count.Load() > int64(c.size) { | ||
| c.cache.Range(func(key, value any) bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to confirm, the random entries here comes from the random sort of the map, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, the iteration order is no defined for maps and hence for sync.Map as it uses map internally.
| @@ -111,7 +118,7 @@ func TestTokeninfoCache(t *testing.T) { | |||
|
|
|||
| assert.Equal(t, int32(1), authRequests, "expected no request to auth sever") | |||
| assert.Equal(t, token, info["uid"]) | |||
| assert.Equal(t, float64(595), info["expires_in"], "expected TokenTTLSeconds - truncate(delay)") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is still quite not obvious why 595 changed to 594?
Is it related to this part of code?
https://github.com/zalando/skipper/pull/3267/files#diff-a2721f4aa66d24557c036d686d4e3344636871b2de93fb75266b8da83d511891L79
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, previous version adjusted cached expires_in based on the time elapsed since entry was cached.
Since the number must be integer it truncated the elapsed time:
new_expires_in = expires_in - truncateToSeconds(now-cachedAt)
this version stores expiration date instead of cached date and calculates expires_in from it:
new_expires_in = truncateToSeconds(infoExpiresAt-now)
This test moves clock by 5.7 seconds so previous version resulted in:
new_expires_in = expires_in - truncateToSeconds(now-cachedAt) = 600 - truncateToSeconds(cachedAt+5.7-cachedAt) = truncateToSeconds(5.7) = 595
and this version results in:
new_expires_in = truncateToSeconds(infoExpiresAt-now) = truncateToSeconds(cachedAt+600-(cachedAt+5.7)) = truncateToSeconds(594.3) = 594
* use sync.Map for tokeninfo cache to avoid synchronizing all callers
on a single mutex
* evict stale entries periodically instead of least recently used
* store token expiration time instead of creation time
```
│ master │ HEAD │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
TokeninfoCache/tokens=1,cacheSize=1,p=0-8 275.5n ± 6% 170.1n ± 4% -38.26% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=2,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 492.9n ± 21% 176.8n ± 2% -64.12% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=0-8 455.9n ± 7% 165.5n ± 1% -63.70% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=10000-8 593.4n ± 4% 179.8n ± 4% -69.71% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=4,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 2571424.0n ± 0% 149.7n ± 3% -99.99% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=10,p=0-8 2579227.5n ± 0% 139.3n ± 1% -99.99% (p=0.000 n=10)
geomean 7.903µ 162.9n -97.94%
│ master │ HEAD │
│ B/op │ B/op vs base │
TokeninfoCache/tokens=1,cacheSize=1,p=0-8 344.0 ± 0% 344.0 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=2,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 344.0 ± 0% 344.0 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=0-8 344.0 ± 0% 344.0 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=10000-8 368.0 ± 1% 350.0 ± 0% -4.89% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=4,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 27.00 ± 0% 344.00 ± 0% +1174.07% (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=10,p=0-8 27.00 ± 7% 344.00 ± 0% +1174.07% (p=0.000 n=10)
geomean 149.0 345.0 +131.62%
¹ all samples are equal
│ master │ HEAD │
│ allocs/op │ allocs/op vs base │
TokeninfoCache/tokens=1,cacheSize=1,p=0-8 3.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=2,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 3.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=0-8 3.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=100,p=10000-8 3.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=10) ¹
TokeninfoCache/tokens=4,cacheSize=2,p=0-8 0.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ? (p=0.000 n=10)
TokeninfoCache/tokens=100,cacheSize=10,p=0-8 0.000 ± 0% 3.000 ± 0% ? (p=0.000 n=10)
geomean ² 3.000 ?
¹ all samples are equal
² summaries must be >0 to compute geomean
```
Signed-off-by: Alexander Yastrebov <[email protected]>
AlexanderYastrebov
force-pushed
the
filters/auth/tokeninfocache-syncmap
branch
from
813bf2a to
818dd4d
Compare
