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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Move clear wait set from after rcl_wait to ahead #427

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 19, 2018
Merged

Move clear wait set from after rcl_wait to ahead #427

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 19, 2018

Conversation

jwang11
Copy link
Contributor

@jwang11 jwang11 commented Jan 11, 2018

Current code do clear wait set after rcl_wait, it is not respond latency
friendly. In fact, clear wait set operation is not urgent, making sure it is
done before next rcl_wait should be fine. With this commit, ready task
will get executed more quickly

Signed-off-by: jwang jing.j.wang@intel.com

@jwang11
Move clear wait set from after rcl_wait to ahead
eb6586d 
Current code clear wait set after rcl_wait, it is not respond latency
friendly. In fact, clear wait set operation is not urgent, making sure it is
done before next rcl_wait should be fine.

Signed-off-by: jwang <jing.j.wang@intel.com>
wjwwood
wjwwood approved these changes Jan 12, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@wjwwood wjwwood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems reasonable to me, anyone else object?

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Jan 12, 2018

I'm combining the CI for this pr and ros2/rcl#207:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • macOS Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@wjwwood wjwwood mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2018
Merged
@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

Before the wait_set_ was already "cleared" when the function wait_for_work() returned. Now that is not the case anymore (since it is being done on the next call of wait_for_work()). Does that require that the cleanup logic in the destructor needs to take care of that instead?

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Jan 12, 2018

I would say no, since it only prepares the storage to be used in a repeated loop, it doesn't clean up any resources or anything. It's analogous to memset to zero. The docs reflect this as well:

https://github.com/ros2/rcl/blob/c09f6428d57ea715ad26067cc4c3e581343eea9b/rcl/include/rcl/wait.h#L212-L234

@dirk-thomas dirk-thomas added the in review Waiting for review (Kanban column) label Jan 18, 2018
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member

wjwwood commented Jan 19, 2018 •
edited
Loading

@jwang11 this was failing our linters due to trailing whitespace, but I think I fixed it in 77ab3bc.

New CI:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • macOS Build Status (unrelated test failure)
  • Windows Build Status (ignoring false positive in cmake warning detection)

@wjwwood wjwwood merged commit e08c800 into ros2:master Jan 19, 2018
@wjwwood wjwwood removed the in review Waiting for review (Kanban column) label Jan 19, 2018
DensoADAS pushed a commit to DensoADAS/rclcpp that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2022
@jacobperron
Improve help message for CLI verbs (ros2#427)
64f791d 
* Improve help message for CLI verbs

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <jacob@openrobotics.org>

* Apply suggestion from review

Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <jacob@openrobotics.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@wjwwood wjwwood wjwwood approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@jwang11 @wjwwood @dirk-thomas