You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Align module base between invalidation and edge tracking (#57625)
Our implicit edge tracking for bindings does not explicitly store any
edges for bindings in the *current* module. The idea behind this is that
this is a good time-space tradeoff for validation, because substantially
all binding references in a module will be to its defining module, while
the total number of methods within a module is limited and substantially
smaller than the total number of methods in the entire system.
However, we have an issue where the code that stores these edges and the
invalidation code disagree on which module is the *current* one. The
edge storing code was using the module in which the method was defined,
while the invalidation code was using the one in which the MethodTable
is defined. With these being misaligned, we can miss necessary
invalidations.
Both options are in principle possible, but I think the former is
better, because the module in which the method is defined is also the
module that we are likely to have a lot of references to (since they get
referenced implicitly by just writing symbols in the code).
However, this presents a problem: We don't actually have a way to
iterate all the methods defined in a particular module, without just
doing the brute force thing of scanning all methods and filtering.
To address this, build on the deferred scanning code added in #57615 to
also add any scanned modules to an explicit list in `Module`. This costs
some space, but only proportional to the number of defined methods, (and
thus proportional to the written source code).
Note that we don't actually observe any issues in the test suite on
master due to this bug. However, this is because we are grossly
over-invalidating, which hides the missing invalidations from this issue
(#57617).
0 commit comments