Assign memo ingredients per salsa-struct-ingredient#614
Assign memo ingredients per salsa-struct-ingredient#614davidbarsky merged 7 commits intosalsa-rs:masterfrom
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for salsa-rs canceled.
|
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #614 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
src/zalsa.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| /// Map from the type-id of a salsa struct to the index of its first ingredient. | ||
| salsa_struct_map: Mutex<FxHashMap<TypeId, IngredientIndex>>, | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like this new table for SalsaStruct -> IngredientIndex but I couldn't find any other way to pass the salsa-struct-ingredient to its tracked function when creating the function's ingredient, as salsa-struct-ingredient is accessible only with its Configuration, that is private inside the macro-expanded code of that salsa struct.
Would there be some good alternatives?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would be inclined to add a method ingredient_index to SalsaStructInDb but best to hear what @nikomatsakis thinks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to get the IngredientIndex for salsa struct here;
salsa/components/salsa-macro-rules/src/setup_tracked_fn.rs
Lines 196 to 205 in e4d36da
and we can't get the actual instance of salsa struct here. All we have is JarAux - actually, this is Zalsa -, so that function should be a static method, I guess. (I'm afraid that this makes SalsaStructInDb dyn-incompatible but we are not using it as a trait object anywhere in salsa)
Thus, the function would be implemented inside our setup_* macros like;
fn ingredient_index(aux: &dyn JarAux) -> IngredientIndex {
aux.lookup_jar_by_type(JarImpl::<$Configuration>::default())
}and we need to expose some method like lookup_jar_by_type in JarAux, I think.
src/zalsa.rs
Outdated
| /// [ingredient-indices](`IngredientIndex`)for tracked functions that have this salsa struct | ||
| /// as input. | ||
| memo_ingredients: RwLock<FxHashMap<IngredientIndex, Vec<IngredientIndex>>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit:
| /// [ingredient-indices](`IngredientIndex`)for tracked functions that have this salsa struct | |
| /// as input. | |
| memo_ingredients: RwLock<FxHashMap<IngredientIndex, Vec<IngredientIndex>>>, | |
| /// [ingredient-indices](`IngredientIndex`) for tracked functions that have this salsa struct | |
| /// as input. | |
| memo_ingredient_indices: RwLock<FxHashMap<IngredientIndex, Vec<IngredientIndex>>>, |
I also have a slight preference to the name @nikomatsakis suggest in the mentoring instructions (memo_ingredient_indices)
src/zalsa.rs
Outdated
| /// [ingredient-indices](`IngredientIndex`)for tracked functions that have this salsa struct | ||
| /// as input. | ||
| memo_ingredients: RwLock<FxHashMap<IngredientIndex, Vec<IngredientIndex>>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could consider using a Vec<Vec<IngredientIndex>> here and directly index into the Vec using the IngredientIndex as an offset. This would result in wasting some memory because not every IngredientIndex is an index for a tracked struct but it would avoid one additional hashing step
Sure! I'll add tests and edit things you commented when I get home. Thanks for the review |
| impl JarAux for Zalsa { | ||
| fn next_memo_ingredient_index(&self, ingredient_index: IngredientIndex) -> MemoIngredientIndex { | ||
| let mut memo_ingredients = self.memo_ingredients.lock(); | ||
| struct JarAuxImpl<'a>(&'a Zalsa, &'a FxHashMap<TypeId, IngredientIndex>); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed salsa struct ingredient lookup as I said here but I had to change this to avoid deadlocks 😢
| }); | ||
| if should_create { | ||
| let aux = JarAuxImpl(self, &jar_map); | ||
| let ingredients = jar.create_ingredients(&aux, index); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a comment on jar_map that suggests that it's important to only access ingredients_vec while the lock on jar_map is held
So moving it out to avoid the deadlock might not be entirely safe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For example. What could happen now is that two calls end up with the same index because the new ingredient isn't pushed on the ingredients_vec until line 206, so that self.ingredients_vec.len() returns the same length.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I'll fix this
|
@ShoyuVanilla hey, cool! My apologies for radio silence. I've been overwhelmed. I'm going to carve out more time for salsa though so let me take a look... |
nikomatsakis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good! Took me a bit to get my head in the right space. I left comments, can you check that they are accurate and merge them in? After that, I'd say we can land this.
| .or_insert_with(|| { | ||
| let index = IngredientIndex::from(self.ingredients_vec.len()); | ||
| let ingredients = jar.create_ingredients(self, index); | ||
| let mut should_create = false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't quite follow this -- why move this logic out from the or_insert_with call?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it is so that ingredient construction can call lookup_jar_by_type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'd be nice to have a comment here explaining that interaction
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't remember for sure - as it was weeks before 😅 -, but I think that it was because it had some issues due to creation order like using ingredients index before they are created.
I'll look into such order related things along with the one you commented here
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[salsa::tracked] | ||
| fn tracked_fn<'db>(db: &'db dyn salsa::Database, input: MyInput, interned: MyInterned<'db>) -> u32 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why this particular test? Tracked functions with multiple arguments today compile to a tracked function on a hidden interned value -- is that what you were intending to test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Though this PR is not directly related to that, but as it changes some codes in such hidden interned value, I was intending to add a regression test for it. Other case are pre-existing
| ) -> Vec<Box<dyn $zalsa::Ingredient>> { | ||
| let struct_index = $zalsa::macro_if! { | ||
| if $needs_interner { | ||
| first_index.successor(0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I...guess this is fine. It's a bit surprising to use the index of something that hasn't been made yet. An alternative would be to flip the order so that we create the interned struct first and then pass its index to the function. There'd probably be some minor adjustments made elsewhere in the file as a result but shouldn't be too bad.
| if $needs_interner { | ||
| first_index.successor(0) | ||
| } else { | ||
| <$InternedData as $zalsa::SalsaStructInDb>::lookup_ingredient_index(aux) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I see now the role of lookup_ingredient_index.
| first_index.successor(0) | ||
| } else { | ||
| <$InternedData as $zalsa::SalsaStructInDb>::lookup_ingredient_index(aux) | ||
| .expect( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not 1000% percent sure that the struct ingredient will always have been created first. If this code doesn't run until the tracked functon is first called, I suppose that's true, but if it could run at some other time maybe not? Still, this seems like a good assertion for now to simplify our lives. If it's not true we can probably add some kind of dependency mechanism to force it to be true.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought - and experimented with some cases - that the structs are created first to be passed to a tracked function but my understanding on salsa is very limited and I might be wrong. I'll investigate this more
| @@ -186,21 +188,22 @@ impl Zalsa { | |||
| { | |||
| let jar_type_id = jar.type_id(); | |||
| let mut jar_map = self.jar_map.lock(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let mut jar_map = self.jar_map.lock(); | |
| // Important: we hold the lock on `jar_map` during ingredient construction to | |
| // ensure all ingredients are created atomically. | |
| let mut jar_map = self.jar_map.lock(); |
Thanks for the review! I'll fix those things by this weekend |
|
Well, I was going to continue working on this but it seems that I'm too late, sorry. I had family affairs last week 😢 |
|
No need to apologize you have no obligations so do not feel pressured to work on things asap |
|
@ShoyuVanilla yeah, no worries, I'm grateful you did the original PR! Very big impact. The main thing this PR needs is |
|
@ShoyuVanilla if it's okay, i'll merge this PR: it'll make managing the stack of changes that Lukas and I have for master...davidbarsky:salsa:david-and-lukas/required-salsa-changes-for-ra a lot easier. Can you do the followups on a separate PR? |
Yes, I'll issue a new follow-up PR (along with #599, maybe?) |
Up to you! |
Closes #600