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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
add Concurrency entity for worker #1405
add Concurrency entity for worker #1405
Changes from 10 commits
abf6b28
9010a8c
4ee4500
f065c10
a982c04
b99b8ce
dc99021
5bcc55b
f08bd7c
e6d7036
f453fb3
d2e13fd
0b11e7d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Seems worth splitting this out so you don't have to no-op it. It isn't even needed - this all compiles fine with
SetQuota
only defined on a non-channel permit.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.
found a race condition of channel sending. Adding a wait time would be more reliable
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.
hmm :\ unfortunately this means that if processing is delayed by 10ms it will block the chan-reader forever. that's not too unlikely with big CPU spikes, and definitely not impossible.
tbh I think that might rule this impl out entirely. though I think it's possible to build a
AcquireChan(...) (<-chan struct{}, cancel func())
that doesn't have this issue, and that might be worth doing.or we might have to embrace the atomic-like behavior around this and add retries to
(*baseWorker).runPoller
/ anything usingAcquireChan
. that wouldn't be a fatal constraint afaict, though it's not ideal.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.
if we expect chan-reader to always consume from the returned
ch
unless ctx is canceled then we can replace this goroutine implementation withThere 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.
fixed through Taylan's suggestion. It should be safe now.
Check warning on line 81 in internal/worker/concurrency.go
internal/worker/concurrency.go#L80-L81