Skip to content
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

Cap node processing at 10mil and log issue #3628

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 1, 2023

Conversation

hoyosjs
Copy link
Member

@hoyosjs hoyosjs commented Jan 31, 2023

Return to pre-large heap support cap of 10 million nodes. Prior to #3475 we capped analysis at 10M nodes. After removing the cap, we often find issues in processing data. There's often an imbalance between node's edge count and the number of available edges. The problem is this error yields no gcdump, so we're adding the cap back until the edge imbalance can be figured out or the dumper can be made resilient. This still hides the buggy behavior around large graphs until it gets further investigation.

@hoyosjs hoyosjs requested a review from a team as a code owner January 31, 2023 22:27
@hoyosjs hoyosjs self-assigned this Jan 31, 2023
@hoyosjs hoyosjs requested review from davmason and dramos020 January 31, 2023 22:27
Copy link
Member

@noahfalk noahfalk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add some description to the PR saying what issue(s) are being addressed. You have some understanding because you directly encountered the problem but nobody else looking at this change in the future will have that same context.

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ public static bool DumpFromEventPipe(CancellationToken ct, int processID, Memory

eventPipeDataPresent = true;

if (gcNum < 0 && data.Depth == 2 && data.Type != GCType.BackgroundGC)
if (gcNum < 0 && data.Depth == 2 && data.Type != GCType.BackgroundGC && data.Reason == GCReason.Induced)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you either update the PR description or remove this part of the change? I can't determine how this part of the change relates.

Copy link
Member Author

@hoyosjs hoyosjs Jan 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed it mostly to revert to prior behavior - although this is technically a bug and can cause an early detach from the EP session.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed it mostly to revert to prior behavior

I don't know what you mean? GitHub doesn't show the change has been removed in the latest version of your PR? I've still got the same request as before - lets either remove this edit from the PR or add text to summary commit message/PR description saying what issue is being fixed here :)

@jander-msft
Copy link
Member

Copy link
Member

@davmason davmason left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 to capturing the context for the change in the PR, otherwise LGTM

@hoyosjs hoyosjs merged commit ca36e64 into dotnet:main Feb 1, 2023
@hoyosjs hoyosjs deleted the juhoyosa/fix-gcdump-error-mode branch February 1, 2023 18:32
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 10, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants