[red-knot] Improve property test performance by cloning db instead of holding MutexGuard
#16823
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
cake-monotone
requested review from
carljm,
AlexWaygood,
sharkdp and
dcreager
as code owners
cake-monotone
changed the title
MutexGuard
|
MichaReiser
added
testing
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
This PR brings an optimization.
get_cached_dbno longer returns aMutexGuard; instead, it returns a cloned database.get_cached_dbPreviously, the
MutexGuardwas held inside the property test function (defined in the macro), which prevented multiple property tests from running in parallel. More specifically, the program could only test one random test case at a time, which likely caused a significant bottleneck.On my local machine, running:
showed about a 75% speedup (from ~60s to ~15s).