-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
Do not construct a Vec for evicted LFT flow IDs
#1045
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
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously this
FlowTable::expire_flowswas called byLayerFlowTable::expire_flowswhich would callFlowTable::expireon each of the returned entries, which would remove it fromFlowTablebut I guess that was redundant with theself.map.retainbelow which is also there in the master branch?I see that
expiry_cleanupcovers whatpropogate_last_hitwas previously doing inFlowTable::expire, but i'm not seeing a corollary toentry.mark_evicted. Is that ok?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 don't think there was anything redundant in the old behaviour.
self.ft_out.expire_flows(now, LftOutEntry::extract_pair)produced a list of inbound flow IDs, which we then expired fromself.ft_in.That's... a good question. It doesn't matter here because we've just asserted that the flow has no children (so
mark_evictedis a no-op), and we shouldn't be doing timer expiry while any children depend on the flow (in contrast with eviction). For LFT partner expiry, thelifetimefield of the in/out entries are guaranteed to be the sameArc'd element. I'll add some commentary on the function to explain theFlowEntrylifetimes must be entwined like that.I worry that could break down if we change up the locking model, however. E.g., if we move to layer-wise locks in future. We've already documented that in
associate_lfts_upstack, but I'll reiterate some of it here too.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've explained this better now, and made a few further tweaks around when we should (and can avoid double-) calling
mark_evictedin certain contexts.