[lldb-dev] Parallelizing loading of shared libraries

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon May 1 21:48:53 PDT 2017

I would still very much prefer we see if there is a way we can adapt LLVM's
ThreadPool class to be suitable for our needs.  Unless some fundamental
aspect of its design results in unacceptable performance for our needs, I
think we should just use it and not re-invent another one.  If there are
improvements to be made, let's make them there instead of in LLDB so that
other LLVM users can benefit.

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:58 PM Scott Smith via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>> Besides, hardcoding the nesting logic into "add" is kinda wrong.
>> Adding a task is not the problematic operation, waiting for the result
>> of one is. Granted, generally these happen on the same thread, but
>> they don't have to be -- you can write a continuation-style
>> computation, where you do a bit of work, and then enqueue a task to do
>> the rest. This would create an infinite pool depth here.
> True, but that doesn't seem to be the style of code here.  If it were you
> wouldn't need multiple pools, since you'd just wait for the callback that
> your work was done.
>> Btw, are we sure it's not possible to solve this with just one thread
>> pool. What would happen if we changed the implementation of "wait" so
>> that if the target task is not scheduled yet, we just go ahead an
>> compute it on our thread? I haven't thought through all the details,
>> but is sounds like this could actually give better performance in some
>> scenarios...
> My initial reaction was "that wouldn't work, what if you ran another posix
> dl load?"  But then I suppose *it* would run more work, and eventually
> you'd run a leaf task and finish something.
> You'd have to make sure your work could be run regardless of what mutexes
> the caller already had (since you may be running work for another
> subsystem), but that's probably not too onerous, esp given how many
> recursive mutexes lldb uses..
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20170502/72d59616/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list