Closed
Bug 1349683
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
Use Move() when assigning from a RefPtr to a RevocableEventPtr
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, enhancement, P3)
Core
XPCOM
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla56
People
(Reporter: dholbert, Assigned: dholbert)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
When reviewing bug 1342863, I noticed that PresShell::ResizeReflowIgnoreOverride currently does: > mResizeEvent = resizeEvent; ...and: > mUpdateApproximateFrameVisibilityEvent = ev; https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05bfa2831c0ba4a26fa72328ffe6a99aba9c356a/layout/base/PresShell.cpp#2017 https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05bfa2831c0ba4a26fa72328ffe6a99aba9c356a/layout/base/PresShell.cpp#6265 (The local variable will be changing name in bug 1342863, but functionally this line will still be the same even after that bug lands.) Here, mResizeEvent is of type nsRevocableEventPtr, and "resizeEvent" (or "event") is of type RefPtr (technically RefPtr<nsRunnableMethod<PresShell>>). Really, we should be assigning using resizeEvent.forget() instead, to trigger the nsRevocableEventPtr assignment-operator that takes an already_AddRefed (and doesn't touch the refcount), so that we don't cause extra addref/release churn.
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Summary: Use .forget() when assigning RefPtr to RevocableEventPtr → Use .forget() when assigning from a RefPtr to a RevocableEventPtr, in layout
Updated•7 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P3
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #0) > Here, mResizeEvent is of type nsRevocableEventPtr, and [...] "event" is of type RefPtr Note: IF mResizeEvent were a RefPtr, then we could use Move() to give it its value (slightly more modern than forget(). But, it's not a RefPtr -- it's a nsRevocableEventPtr (a special wrapper around a RefPtr), which does not have a Move constructor, but *does* have an already_AddRefed constructor: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5e73b9798464c3f7106f0161dc9a49b234f42f9c/xpcom/threads/nsThreadUtils.h#1624-1631 So, for now, forget() is the best we can do here (and it's an improvement from the status quo of unnecessary refcount churn).
Assignee: nobody → dholbert
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
What if nsRevocableEventPtr had only an operator=(RefPtr<T>&& aEvent) and didn't hvae operator=(already_AddRefed<T> aEvent) or operator=(RefPtr<T>& aEvent)? Would that change it so failing to use Move() would be a compiler error, or would the compiler do the implicit conversion to T* to get around that?
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-7 from comment #2) > What if nsRevocableEventPtr had only an operator=(RefPtr<T>&& aEvent) and > didn't hvae operator=(already_AddRefed<T> aEvent) or operator=(RefPtr<T>& > aEvent)? Would that change it so failing to use Move() would be a compiler > error Yeah, local tests seem to indicate that this does make failure-to-use-Move a compiler error. Maybe that'd be worth it? I'll see what I can do... It's possible we'll have some cases (outside of layout) where we want to do a few more things with the assignment-source after we've copied it into nsRevocableEventPtr... But I think we could hack around that sort of scenario with an extra local variable, and hopefully that'd be rare & not too messy.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #5) > (In reply to David Baron :dbaron: ⌚️UTC-7 from comment #2) > > What if nsRevocableEventPtr had only an operator=(RefPtr<T>&& aEvent) and > > didn't hvae operator=(already_AddRefed<T> aEvent) or operator=(RefPtr<T>& > > aEvent)? Would that change it so failing to use Move() would be a compiler > > error > > Yeah, local tests seem to indicate that this does make failure-to-use-Move a > compiler error. Correction -- this strategy (leaving only a Move assignment operator) *only* makes this a compile error: myRevocableEvent = myRefPtr; ...but these still work (presumably through implicit conversion producing a RefPtr<T>&& under the hood): myRevocableEvent = myRefPtr.forget(); // already_addRefed myRevocableEvent = myRefPtr.get(); // raw pointer myRevocableEvent = someRawPtr; // raw pointer So on the one hand, it seems like comment 2 wouldn't buy us much strictness. But on the other hand, the strictness that it *does* buy us is mostly sufficient to avoid/discourage the "unnecessary refcount churn" problem-scenario here. (Unless someone does myRefPtr.get(), but that's pretty well understood to be an anti-pattern and hopefully will throw up some red flags to reviewers...)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
(Updating summary to reflect new plans here, post-comment 2.) I'll tag froydnj for review on this once he's back from vacation.
Component: Layout → XPCOM
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)
Summary: Use .forget() when assigning from a RefPtr to a RevocableEventPtr, in layout → Use Move() when assigning from a RefPtr to a RevocableEventPtr
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8887693 -
Flags: review?(nfroyd)
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(dholbert)
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8887693 [details] Bug 1349683: Give RevocableEventPtr a "move" assignment operator, and use it to reduce refcount churn. https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/158594/#review165828 r+ for refcount-churn reducing patches.
Attachment #8887693 -
Flags: review?(nfroyd) → review+
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by dholbert@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/ea313d4b3093 Give RevocableEventPtr a "move" assignment operator, and use it to reduce refcount churn. r=froydnj
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ea313d4b3093
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
status-firefox56:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla56
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
Too late for 55. Mark 55 won't fix.
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
This brought an improvement. Thanks! == Change summary for alert #8196 (as of July 24 2017 19:45 UTC) == Improvements: 7% Strings PerfStripCharsCRLF windows10-64 opt 740,819.62 -> 689,997.75 For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=8196
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•7 years ago
|
||
I'm skeptical about whether that was a real win or not -- it looks like we just had a brief spike, and happened to return to the baseline value when this bug's commit landed (and I don't think this bug deserves any special credit). Looking at the graph[1], it looks like we had a small regression (i.e. the points all jump upwards) for a 3-hour period on July 24 -- specifically, from 16:45 - 19:45. The measurements in that range are higher than usual, but the measurements before/after that range seem to all be about the same. I would bet this was just us briefly tripping a PGO quirk, and then un-tripping it somehow, or something else odd like that. The first "bad" commit was https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/bfdd14469c99 (which caused alert https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=8190 ), and the first "good" commit was for this bug here (with alert linked in comment 13). So anyway - I suspect neither of the good/bad commits was especially good/bad, and thank goodness the random spike was temporary. :) [1] https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?timerange=2592000&series=%5Bautoland,d99b99eda8a9a3978d58569b73f7348d838fb67e,1,6%5D&zoom=1500881148487.6404,1500957918204.4944,500000,977611.9402985075 (I'm not sure if this graph will continue to be correct as time moves on; hence, I'm including the actual wallclock date & time above, too.)
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
Thanks Daniel, for shedding light over this perf result. If not for this bug, then for the explanation.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•