add_thunk: Optimize domination check #342
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
|
@DrChainsaw the "Remove workers" test is being flaky again, so I'm disabling it for now. I think we should sit down and rethink those tests (and potentially Dagger's own add/remove interfaces) to ensure that we can reliably test that behavior, regardless of what decisions the scheduler makes. |
Yeah, I guess it was only a matter of time. I should probably have used better judgement and not tried to push that "fix" :) Perhaps just let it be untested until work stealing is implemented as the add/remove functionality anyways is a bit pointless without it? |
jpsamaroo
force-pushed
the
jps/faster-dominates
branch
from
02f0fae to
b024f1f
Compare
jpsamaroo
force-pushed
the
jps/faster-dominates
branch
from
df55d47 to
6600bce
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
dominates(called inadd_thunk!->register_future!) previously used a duplicative recursive implementation, which has known issues. This switchesdominatesto a visitor pattern, which results in far better performance on large task trees.Fixes #341