-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 698
Don't retain a task when all we want is a time #2373
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
FranzBusch
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice one!
Motivation: To know when we next need to wake up, we keep track of what the next deadline will be. This works great, but in order to keep track of this UInt64 we save off an entire ScheduledTask. This object is quite wide (6 pointers wide), and two of those pointers require ARC traffic, so doing this saving produces unnecessary overhead. Worse, saving this task plays poorly with task cancellation. If the saved task is cancelled, this has the effect of "retaining" that task until the next event loop tick. This is unlikely to produce catastrophic bugs in real programs, where the loop does tick, but it violates our tests which rigorously assume that we will always drop a task when it is cancelled. In specific manufactured cases it's possible to produce leaks of non-trivial duration. Modifications: - Wrote a weirdly complex test. - Moved the implementation of Task.readyIn to a method on NIODeadline - Saved a NIODeadline instead of a ScheduledTask Result: Minor performance improvement in the core event loop processing, minor correctness improvement.
5e24b67
to
bb0c1fd
Compare
@swift-server-bot test perf please |
performance reportbuild id: 148 timestamp: Mon Feb 20 14:52:10 UTC 2023 results
comparison
significant differences found |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation:
To know when we next need to wake up, we keep track of what the next deadline will be. This works great, but in order to keep track of this UInt64 we save off an entire ScheduledTask. This object is quite wide (6 pointers wide), and two of those pointers require ARC traffic, so doing this saving produces unnecessary overhead.
Worse, saving this task plays poorly with task cancellation. If the saved task is cancelled, this has the effect of "retaining" that task until the next event loop tick. This is unlikely to produce catastrophic bugs in real programs, where the loop does tick, but it violates our tests which rigorously assume that we will always drop a task when it is cancelled. In specific manufactured cases it's possible to produce leaks of non-trivial duration.
Modifications:
Result:
Minor performance improvement in the core event loop processing, minor correctness improvement.