Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
time: Tick docs don't mention CPU cost of "leaks" #17757
Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!
What version of Go are you using (
While you're technically right that "leak" could mean any resource, that's not the popular definition of leaks. Doing a Google search for [memory leak] shows 4.2M results. Doing a google search for [resource leak] and [cpu leak] show 370K and 660K results, respectively -- tiny in comparison to the former. Most developers would read these lines and come out thinking the doc is purely about memory leak. Anecdotal evidence:
And memory leak makes sense. It's a common problem with C++ programs, and when GC can't reach something, memory leaking is already expected and quickly assumed. Typically, these leaking structures are passive, and they just lie around consuming only memory; but timer is not a passive structure. It's actively consuming CPU cycles, easily using up an entire core due to a nonchalant use of this wrapper function.
And therein lies the confusion. I think we should trade clarity over a technicality, and outright mention the more significant adverse effect, which is CPU consumption caused by a fast iterating loop using this wrapper function.