-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
Support for split reads in bbq2 #122
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
Open
Sympatron
wants to merge
4
commits into
jamesmunns:main
Choose a base branch
from
Sympatron:split-read
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -84,9 +84,20 @@ pub unsafe trait Coord: ConstInit { | |
|
|
||
| // Read Grants | ||
|
|
||
| /// Attempt to obtain a read grant. | ||
| /// Attempt to obtain a read grant. Returns `Ok((start, size))` on success. | ||
| fn read(&self) -> Result<(usize, usize), ReadGrantError>; | ||
|
|
||
| /// Attempt to obtain a split read grant. Return `Ok(((start1, size1), (start2, size2)))` on success. | ||
| fn split_read(&self) -> Result<[(usize, usize); 2], ReadGrantError> { | ||
| unimplemented!() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Mark `used` bytes as available for writing | ||
| fn release_inner(&self, used: usize); | ||
|
|
||
| /// Mark `used1 + used2` bytes as available for writing. | ||
| /// `used1` corresponds to the first split grant, `used2` to the second. | ||
| fn split_release_inner(&self, _used1: usize, _used2: usize) { | ||
|
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am not super happy with this signature, but I can't put my finger on it... |
||
| unimplemented!() | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
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.
Do you think it's worth adding a default impl to this that always returns an error, in order to avoid a breaking change for now?
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.
If we DO make a breaking change, I wonder if it's worth making an
struct OffsetSlice { offset: usize, len: usize }, and returningResult<[OffsetSlice; 2], ReadGrantError>or something in order to avoid complex tuple types (esp. since both are usizes types!)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.
Maybe instead of an error, always return an empty second section?
Though that might be more confusing in terms of debugging in some cases.
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 think that might be "too clever by half", yeah.
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.
Another idea I just had would be to have a new trait SplitCoord: Coord that has split_read and split_release_inner (which I realized I need too). Then SplitGrantR can be given out only if Q::Coord :SplitCoord.
Adding a default impl would be fine, too. What do you prefer?
I like the
OffsetSliceidea.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'm open to the specialized trait idea, as long as it looks reasonable in practice! I know we do that with Notify already.
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.
That being said, I don't think having split grants adds any overhead, like having async notify would. That actually makes me think maybe we don't specialize it? Sorry to give you conflicting opinions, but I'd actually maybe save "specialization" traits for cases where having the specialized version "costs" more.