-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
Ensure read/readavailable for BufferStream are threadsafe #57211
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
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Ok, I just mostly copied the |
vtjnash
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2025
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <vtjnash@gmail.com>
CI errors seem unrelated; merging |
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
It looks like these methods were just missed while overloading for BufferStream. There's also `readbytes!` where the current implementation will fallback to the `LibuvStream` implementation that is currently not threadsafe. What's the best approach there since the implementation is quite a bit more involved? Just duplicate the code but for BufferStream? Should we take the BufferStream lock and invoke the LibuvStream method? Open to ideas there. Also open to suggestions for having tests here? Not easy to simulate the data race of writing and calling readavailable. The fix here will unblock JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#1213 (I'll probably do some compat shim there until this is fully released). Thanks to @oscardssmith for rubber ducking this issue with me. Probably most helpfully reviewed by @vtjnash. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <vtjnash@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit ffc96bc)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
It looks like these methods were just missed while overloading for BufferStream. There's also `readbytes!` where the current implementation will fallback to the `LibuvStream` implementation that is currently not threadsafe. What's the best approach there since the implementation is quite a bit more involved? Just duplicate the code but for BufferStream? Should we take the BufferStream lock and invoke the LibuvStream method? Open to ideas there. Also open to suggestions for having tests here? Not easy to simulate the data race of writing and calling readavailable. The fix here will unblock JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#1213 (I'll probably do some compat shim there until this is fully released). Thanks to @oscardssmith for rubber ducking this issue with me. Probably most helpfully reviewed by @vtjnash. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <vtjnash@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit ffc96bc)
32 tasks
KristofferC
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2025
Backported PRs: - [x] #57142 <!-- Add reference to time_ns in time --> - [x] #57241 <!-- Handle `waitpid` race condition when `SIGCHLD` is set to `SIG_IGN` --> - [x] #57249 <!-- restore non-freebsd-unix fix for profiling --> - [x] #57211 <!-- Ensure read/readavailable for BufferStream are threadsafe --> - [x] #57262 <!-- edit NEWS for v1.12 --> - [x] #57226 <!-- cfunction: reimplement, as originally planned, for reliable performance --> - [x] #57253 <!-- bpart: Fully switch to partitioned semantics --> - [x] #57273 <!-- fix "Right arrow autocompletes at line end" implementation --> - [x] #57280 <!-- dep: Update JuliaSyntax --> - [x] #57229 <!-- staticdata: Close data race after backedge insertion --> - [x] #57298 <!-- Updating binding version to fix MMTk CI --> - [x] #57248 <!-- improve concurrency safety for `Compiler.finish!` --> - [x] #57312 <!-- Profile.print: de-focus sleeping frames as gray --> - [x] #57289 <!-- Make `OncePerX` subtype `Function` --> - [x] #57310 <!-- Make ptls allocations at least 128 byte aligned --> - [x] #57311 <!-- Add a warning for auto-import of types --> - [x] #57338 <!-- fix typo in Float32 random number generation --> - [x] #57293 <!-- Fix getfield_tfunc when order or boundscheck is Vararg --> - [x] #57349 <!-- docs: fix-up world-age handling for META access --> - [x] #57344 <!-- Add missing type asserts when taking the queue out of the task struct --> - [x] #57348 <!-- 🤖 [master] Bump the SparseArrays stdlib from 212981b to 72c7cac --> - [x] #55040 <!-- Allow macrocall as function sig --> - [x] #57299 <!-- Add missing latestworld after parameterized type alias -->
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
It looks like these methods were just missed while overloading for BufferStream.
There's also
readbytes!
where the current implementation will fallback to theLibuvStream
implementation that is currently not threadsafe. What's the best approach there since the implementation is quite a bit more involved? Just duplicate the code but for BufferStream? Should we take the BufferStream lock and invoke the LibuvStream method? Open to ideas there.Also open to suggestions for having tests here? Not easy to simulate the data race of writing and calling readavailable.
The fix here will unblock JuliaWeb/HTTP.jl#1213 (I'll probably do some compat shim there until this is fully released).
Thanks to @oscardssmith for rubber ducking this issue with me.
Probably most helpfully reviewed by @vtjnash.