Implements pending future tracking in async. #11181
Conversation
|
|
||
| var futuresInProgress {.threadvar.}: Table[FutureInfo, int] | ||
|
|
||
| proc getFuturesInProgress*(): var Table[FutureInfo, int] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole proc is not necessary with the new table implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be honest it's probably better to have this proc anyway. Accessing a global var doesn't seem like great API design.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What? The proc is exported
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use a TableRef then with this logic, this var Table here is fragile :P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh, can you explain why it is fragile?
dom96
force-pushed
the
pending-future-tracking
branch
from
baa155d
to
1805947
Compare
|
Windows test failure is unrelated to PR. https://ci.appveyor.com/project/dom96/nim/builds/24332702/job/dtt16wof6xkd7qjx#L1407 |
dom96
force-pushed
the
pending-future-tracking
branch
from
1805947
to
abe634a
Compare
|
And here is what this looks like in Prometheus:
|
|
Is it really so risky to merge this that you need to keep retrying the CI until it passes? |
|
Thanks @Araq <3 |
This is incredibly useful for figuring out possible leaks caused by stuck async procs/futures.
Here is an example from my server during a leak:
You can see some counts at 6k+. Normally they are all 0 or
1. I will also be adding support for this in my prometheus package which will make analysing this an absolute dream