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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
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
TaskExecutor should not fork unnecessarily #13472
TaskExecutor should not fork unnecessarily #13472
Changes from 6 commits
59cc1f1
0ffd022
29bdbf9
55fa514
9781dae
5c60d5b
8b66467
1d310ae
18e66a8
6baf3dc
e2bf7aa
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
minor nit: I think it would be more readable to adjust the expected result, than to increment the actual side of the assert:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, this test method was renamed when we introduced unconditional offloading, and it is called
testSlicesAllOffloadedToTheExecutor
. Given that with this change we no longer offload all slices to the executor, we should probably rename this test method accordingly?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Renamed and moved the
1
to the other side :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why did this need adapting? Is that expected?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes because you have N - 1 tasks started on the executor now and 1 on the caller thread -> need to add or subtract one, found it easiest to read this way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is perhaps subjective but I think we should be adapting the expectation as opposed to tweaking the actual value.
Additionally, I think that we should check that the task that gets executed by the caller thread is skipped when the first task throws an exception. Can you add that to the test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adjusted the expectation. Also changed the test a little to simply fail in case we run any of the additional tasks no matter the thread, they obviously should all be skipped. Together with counting 99 tasks on the executor I believe that tests exactly what you are looking for :)