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.

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

runtime: perform concurrent stack re-scanning #17505

Closed
aclements opened this issue Oct 18, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

runtime: perform concurrent stack re-scanning #17505

aclements opened this issue Oct 18, 2016 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@aclements
Copy link
Member

@aclements aclements commented Oct 18, 2016

As a counter-proposal to #17503, we could improve STW times by performing stack re-scanning concurrently. I'm not actually proposing this, but I wrote a whole design doc before realizing a simpler approach would let us completely eliminate stack re-scanning. This issue is a place to put that design doc.

@aclements aclements self-assigned this Oct 18, 2016
@gopherbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented Oct 18, 2016

CL https://golang.org/cl/31360 mentions this issue.

@aclements

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@aclements aclements commented Oct 19, 2016

/cc @RLH @rhysh

@quentinmit quentinmit added the NeedsFix label Oct 20, 2016
@quentinmit quentinmit added this to the Unplanned milestone Oct 20, 2016
@rhysh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@rhysh rhysh commented Oct 24, 2016

Thanks for playing this out, @aclements. I agree that the approach in #17503 is much simpler—to understand, to reason about, to implement. The transitive mark write barrier seems like it would invite tail latency bugs, which would be hard to diagnose and to work around.

@aclements

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@aclements aclements commented Oct 24, 2016

@rhysh, thanks for the suggestion in the first place. :) Writing out this design in depth is what led me to #17503 (which is not as simple as it sounds to implement, but is very nearly done anyway).

gopherbot pushed a commit to golang/proposal that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2016
Updates golang/go#17505.

Change-Id: I353edb79d23b1ef1a6bab57485cfd74089b67fa0
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/31360
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
@aclements

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@aclements aclements commented Oct 24, 2016

Closing, since we're going with #17503 instead of this.

@aclements aclements closed this Oct 24, 2016
@golang golang locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 24, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.