-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47.1k
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
Entangle overlapping transitions per queue #20670
Merged
acdlite
merged 1 commit into
facebook:master
from
acdlite:entangle-overlappin-transitions
Jan 27, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I want to make sure I understand the new logic for calling
markRootEntangled
.The only other place we do this now (I think) is in mutable source. The trigger in that case is when we detect reading from a source that has pending mutations scheduled.
I think the added calls to
markRootEntangled
are there to ensure that every transition scheduled for the same state/reducer queue get entangled.I'm not sure I understand why we need to explicitly remove already finished entangled lanes (things no longer in
pendingLanes
). I understand why we shouldn't re-entangle them but I'm not sure I get why they'd still be inqueue.lanes
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah good question. The
lanes
field is a superset of all the transition lanes that are still pending on that queue. We don't clear it in the commit phase, we only clear it here and if the hook bails out. Neither of those heuristics will account for all cases, there will be some cases where we don't know for sure if a lane is still pending in the queue, but it's good enough for the common case, which is that there are no pending transitions on the root at all.It's basically the same trick we use for eagerly bailing out of state updates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An important detail is that this is the "shared" queue, not the per-fiber queue. When we schedule updates on it, we don't know the current state. It's append-only, you can't read from it. Except with tricks like this.