-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
Reapply "[scudo] Update secondary cache time-based release logic" #110391
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
Open
JoshuaMBa
wants to merge
1
commit into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
JoshuaMBa:reapply_release_logic
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
The logic here seems a little bit too complicated (at least in terms of readability). Can we simplify it as
In addition, single line statement of if-else doesn't need brackets
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.
I think the issue is that in the case that
Entry.Time == 0
andLastUnreleasedEntry != CachedBlock::InvalidEntry
, then the code will be exactly the same as if we were just inserting the entry at the head of the LRU list. I was thinking that maybe we can just have a function calledinsertBefore()
that inserts a cache entry before a certain index. Then our code could just be(where
insertBefore(CachedBlock::InvalidEntry)
would just insert the entry at the tail of the LRU list). Let me know what you think.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.
Yes, I'm thinking of the similar thing. Instead of inserting before, I may do
insert after
(to align what Scudo list supports)In the caller (i.e., in store())
So every insertion needs to provide the position to insert, this will help the future replacement with Scudo list.
If you also agree with this, it's better to have another CL to do the refactor and have this later
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.
That sounds good to me. Since we want to add this refactoring in a separate CL, should I leave the logic as is or change it as suggested before:
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.
As long as we have a better way to tell the logic, it's fine to keep that logic.
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.
Ok, sounds good. I'll leave it as is right now and refactor in the next CL.