Skip to content

Fix new scheduler loop #747

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 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2020
Merged

Fix new scheduler loop #747

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2020

Conversation

dignifiedquire
Copy link
Member

This now matches more closely the logic as implemented in #631, and fixes the performance regression as far as I have observed.

Closes #746

This now matches more closely the logic as implemented in #631, and fixes the performance regression as far as I have observed.

Closes #746
Copy link
Contributor

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts merged commit aebba2b into master Apr 9, 2020
@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts deleted the fix/scheduler-perf branch April 9, 2020 15:26
Comment on lines +263 to 267
// If another thread is already blocked on the reactor, there is no point in keeping
// the current thread around since there is too little work to do.
if sched.polling {
thread::sleep(Duration::from_micros(10));
continue;
break;
}
Copy link

@win-t win-t Apr 9, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure, terminating the thread is a good idea, what will happen when the load is increasing? no new thread will be created

simple sleep like this will end up with single thread with no way to recover the worker thread

        task::spawn(async {
            loop {
                task::sleep(Duration::from_secs(1)).await;
                io::stdout().write_all(b"Hello World\n").await.unwrap();
            }
        })
        .await;

Copy link

@win-t win-t Apr 9, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I want to bring back auto spawning thread here #740 (PR: #744) , but it's just as a fallback if the users forget to use spawn_blocking (or especially when they don't own full control of the code, like using a library)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can not go back to the sleep & continue, it regresses performance even further, so we need to find a better solution.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The correct fix as far as I understand is to bring back the dynamic restarting of machines: #748

dignifiedquire added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2020
Even if we do not make use of the progress blocking, we do need to make use of the dynamic restarting of machines as far as I understand.

Keeps the perf, while removing the regression from #747
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Performance regression with new scheduler
3 participants