Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

HPCC-32259 Track time spent in different parts of Roxie receive thread #18885

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024
Merged

HPCC-32259 Track time spent in different parts of Roxie receive thread #18885

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024

Conversation

richardkchapman
Copy link
Member

@richardkchapman richardkchapman commented Jul 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

@richardkchapman richardkchapman force-pushed the time-gone branch 3 times, most recently from 1df5f45 to 5086420 Compare July 17, 2024 12:26
@richardkchapman richardkchapman changed the title WIP HPCC-32259 Track time spent in different parts of Roxie receive thread Jul 17, 2024
@richardkchapman richardkchapman marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2024 12:28
@richardkchapman richardkchapman force-pushed the time-gone branch 3 times, most recently from 5d2e345 to 82cf9e4 Compare July 17, 2024 14:42
ghalliday
ghalliday reviewed Jul 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ghalliday ghalliday left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@richardkchapman looks good. A few minor comments.

roxie/udplib/udptrr.cpp Outdated
}
}
{
UdpRdTracker::TimeDivision d(timeTracker, UdpRdTracker::pushing);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor: Change to d.switchState, and line 1432

system/jlib/jmisc.hpp Outdated
unsigned __int64 now = get_cycles_now();
if (reportIntervalCycles && now - lastReport >= reportIntervalCycles)
report(true);
if (newState != currentState)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor: Would be a fractionally clearer to use prevState in place of currentState. No need to change though.

system/jlib/jmisc.hpp
doneOne = true;
}
if (reset)
totals[i] = 0;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also reset counts[i]?

system/jlib/jmisc.hpp Outdated
if (doneOne)
DBGLOG("%s", str.str());
if (reset)
lastTick = now;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Already done in line 393

system/jlib/jmisc.hpp
report(true);
if (newState != currentState)
{
totals[currentState] += now - lastTick;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If report() has been called, this will cause totals to be set to a very high number - because lastTick will be set to the latest value of get_cycles_now() - which will be larger than 'now'.
Probably simplest to pass now into the report function, and have a public helper which does not require it to be passed (or similar).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

note: This will self correct later, so maybe not worth worrying about - but if so, it is worth adding a comment to clarify.

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member Author

CHanges made following comments

@richardkchapman richardkchapman changed the base branch from master to candidate-9.6.x July 24, 2024 10:29
@ghalliday ghalliday merged commit fdb5c1a into hpcc-systems:candidate-9.6.x Jul 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ghalliday ghalliday ghalliday approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@richardkchapman @ghalliday