-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31k
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
GH-126892: Reset warmup counters when JIT compiling code #126893
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b1d77eb
Reset the counter after optimizing
brandtbucher 3517502
Fix test
brandtbucher 02d4d74
blurb add
brandtbucher 1bb6bd0
Catch up with main
brandtbucher a6e173f
Disable the JIT during strace
brandtbucher 1d8d086
Merge branch 'main' into reset-counters
brandtbucher 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
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2024-11-15-16-39-37.gh-issue-126892.QR6Yo3.rst
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Require cold or invalidated code to "warm up" before being JIT compiled | ||
again. |
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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Guessing this showed up in the
test_fileio
testtest_syscalls_read
?I have been keeping an eye on / working through a couple other issues where mmap(NULL) and mprotect show up, trying to figure out if just excluding those two from that test would be good/effective (memory allocation happening in reading files is fine / not what the test is focused on).
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, I was wondering if this was susceptible to catching badly-timed arena allocations and such too. Might make sense to have an option to ignore the
mmap
/munmap
/mprotect
family of functions instead of this ad-hoc fix.I'm just not familiar with how this is being used, and didn't want to change the meaning/behavior of the tests too dramatically.