Updates at the same priority should not interrupt current render #11578
Conversation
This file contains 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
acdlite
force-pushed
the
prevent-interruptions-at-same-level
branch
from
d3b6671
to
fc93094
Compare
When we're rendering work at a specific level, and a higher priority update comes in, we interrupt the current work and restart at the higher priority. The rationale is that the high priority update is likely cheaper to render that the lower one, so it's usually worth throwing out the current work to get the high pri update on the screen as soon as possible. Currently, we also interrupt the current work if an update of *equal* priority is scheduled. The rationale here is less clear: the only reason to do this is if both updates are expected to flush at the same time, to prevent tearing. But this usually isn't the case. Separate setStates are usually distinct updates that can be flushed separately, especially if the components that are being updated are in separate subtrees. An exception is in Flux-like systems where multiple setStates are the result of a single conceptual update/event/dispatch. We can add an explicit API for batching in the future; in fact, we'd likely need one anyway to account for expiration accidentally causing consecutive updates to fall into separate buckets.
acdlite
force-pushed
the
prevent-interruptions-at-same-level
branch
from
fc93094
to
b7edb4b
Compare
sebmarkbage
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2017
|
We'll have to be careful so that we don't accidentally drop this expiration time when we later complete the parents of this fiber. |
Ethan-Arrowood
pushed a commit
to Ethan-Arrowood/react
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2017
…ebook#11578) When we're rendering work at a specific level, and a higher priority update comes in, we interrupt the current work and restart at the higher priority. The rationale is that the high priority update is likely cheaper to render that the lower one, so it's usually worth throwing out the current work to get the high pri update on the screen as soon as possible. Currently, we also interrupt the current work if an update of *equal* priority is scheduled. The rationale here is less clear: the only reason to do this is if both updates are expected to flush at the same time, to prevent tearing. But this usually isn't the case. Separate setStates are usually distinct updates that can be flushed separately, especially if the components that are being updated are in separate subtrees. An exception is in Flux-like systems where multiple setStates are the result of a single conceptual update/event/dispatch. We can add an explicit API for batching in the future; in fact, we'd likely need one anyway to account for expiration accidentally causing consecutive updates to fall into separate buckets.
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.
When we're rendering work at a specific level, and a higher priority update comes in, we interrupt the current work and restart at the higher priority. The rationale is that the high priority update is likely cheaper to render that the lower one, so it's usually worth throwing out the current work to get the high pri update on the screen as soon as possible.
Currently, we also interrupt the current work if an update of equal priority is scheduled. The rationale here is less clear: the only reason to do this is if both updates are expected to flush at the same time, to prevent tearing. But this usually isn't the case. Separate setStates are usually distinct updates that can be flushed separately, especially if the components that are being updated are in separate subtrees.
An exception is in Flux-like systems where multiple setStates are the result of a single conceptual update/event/dispatch. We can add an explicit API for batching in the future; in fact, we'd likely need one anyway to account for expiration accidentally causing consecutive updates to fall into separate buckets.