Fixed wrong code around Memory Profiler#9472
Conversation
|
This partially reverts #8765 |
|
There were a few bugs:
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/8765/files#diff-1f307cce4cc43b590c8b9c2023ab213fR35 This leads to deadlock.
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/8765/files#diff-d793b741301f371dc58b28c87a401fa3R116
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/8765/files#diff-d98bf273b2e4b64c454efaa43e721e10R31 The code was ignorant because of:
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/8765/files#diff-9fca6c43c4e7d9e86c5a4c532c62a249R1 The singleton class with very unobvious use but without any comments. We already have singletons in our code, but creating another specific singleton class and naming is just "Singleton" is very confusing. Also it looks half done.
Two "collect" methods with unknown purpose:
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/8765/files#diff-bdbb6c9c9b356ce37fb0fbe0bdbfbd0dR120 |
|
QueryProfiler test was broken in #9433 |
|
It requires further investigation. |
Also there was no test for memory profiler. |
|
Ok, now it works perfectly: |
|
We have our own clock_nanosleep from Musl. |
|
Almost obviously, the issue with |
It didn't help. Now I think the issue is the lack of unwind tables (CFI) in asm sources in Musl. |
|
And this solves the issue: 8d679b5 |
|
The new test "memory profiler" is only for release build. |
Changelog category (leave one):
Changelog entry (a user-readable short description of the changes that goes to CHANGELOG.md):
Do not include in changelog. The feature "memory profiler" is not yet in release.