use a buffered writer instead of manually buffering #56
Conversation
Stebalien
force-pushed
the
feat/steb-has-opinions
branch
3 times, most recently
from
cb80153
to
1672d65
Compare
Stebalien
force-pushed
the
feat/steb-has-opinions
branch
from
1672d65
to
dc5e729
Compare
| } | ||
| defer mp.closeNoWait() | ||
| if err := mp.sendLoop(); err != nil { | ||
| log.Info("send loop exited with: %s", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that probably should be debug
| case data = <-mp.writeCh: | ||
| case <-mp.shutdown: | ||
| return nil | ||
| case <-writeTimer.C: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so wait, what happens if we got no data when the timer fires?
I think we are going to end up getting lots of interrupts from this for idle connections.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We go to line 206 and wait.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we'll get a fired timer then if the wait is arbitrary before we are doing any coalescing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I see. Yeah, we'll "flush" no data. But we should only get to this point if:
- The connection is new (we'll have no data to flush so flush will be a noop).
- We've read some data off the data chan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am more concerned about waiting a bit, having the timer fire while we are waiting for data, and then see it as immediately fired without actually coalescing anything.
|
Also, lots of rightwards drift. |
|
Well, we could use gotos for that. But your point about flushing too eagerly is right. It's mitigated by polling the input channel before even checking the deadline but still. Closing for now. |
Thoughts?