[IMPROVED] Publish permissions cache pruning #6674
Merged
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
The test `TestLeafNodePubAllowedPruning` would sometimes report (after all go routines calling c.pubAllowed() being done) that the cache size was greater than the max allowed (128). @MauriceVanVeen did fix the test with a correct explanation of why this test flapped, but I think we can improve a tiny bit the code so that the cache is much likely to be pruned enough. In this PR, I make `prunePubPermsCache()` attempts up to 5 times to prune enough the cache, locking/releasing at each attempt to improve the odds that another routine takes a shot at it. In my experiments, I am seeing only up to 2 attempts to be below the max size (and less than 10ms execution time). That being said, with artificial sleep before the release of the lock, it could take way more attempts. So for very slow machines, although I have reverted the changes to the test done in PR#6636, I did add a little protection to call one more time `c.pubAllowed()` if we first detect that we are over the limit. If we are still after that the test will fail and would need another look. Signed-off-by: Ivan Kozlovic <[email protected]>
wallyqs
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2025
MauriceVanVeen
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2025
Merged
neilalexander
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2025
Includes the following (already cherry-picked) PRs: - #6587 - #6607 - #6612 - #6609 - #6620 - #6668 - #6674 - #6647 - #6684 - #6691 - #6697 - #6705 - #6706 - #6704 - #6714 - #6720 - #6727 - #6730 - #6726 - #6732 - #6759 - #6753 - #6685 - #6769 - #6777 - #6785 - #6786 - #6778 - #6790 - #6791 - #6798 - #6794 - #6801 Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg <[email protected]>
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.
The test
TestLeafNodePubAllowedPruningwould sometimes report (after all go routines calling c.pubAllowed() being done) that the cache size was greater than the max allowed (128).@MauriceVanVeen did fix the test with a correct explanation of why this test flapped, but I think we can improve a tiny bit the code so that the cache is much likely to be pruned enough.
In this PR, I make
prunePubPermsCache()attempts up to 5 times to prune enough the cache, locking/releasing at each attempt to improve the odds that another routine takes a shot at it.In my experiments, I am seeing only up to 2 attempts to be below the max size (and less than 10ms execution time). That being said, with artificial sleep before the release of the lock, it could take way more attempts. So for very slow machines, although I have reverted the changes to the test done in PR#6636, I did add a little protection to call one more time
c.pubAllowed()if we first detect that we are over the limit. If we are still after that the test will fail and would need another look.Signed-off-by: Ivan Kozlovic [email protected]