Revert usage of hash to select the shard#468
Merged
Merged
Conversation
nsavoire
previously approved these changes
Nov 5, 2025
r1viollet
commented
Nov 5, 2025
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| if (skip_free++ >= options.skip_free) { |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe I remove the skip free ? I don't like skip free it ends up killing my laptop 😄
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
skip free is useful to check that we are able to detect leaks
Benchmark results for collatzParameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 1 metrics, 0 unstable metrics. See unchanged results
|
Benchmark results for BadBoggleSolver_runParameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 0 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.
See unchanged results |
- In 6bfad54 I made a mistake where I broke the sharding logic. - Minor cleanup on unused variables
- We leak the address tracking structure for large allocations from the AddressBitset::init function - Minor const correctness fix
r1viollet
force-pushed
the
r1viollet/fix_bitset_logic
branch
from
November 5, 2025 16:59
5b6d588 to
a99eba8
Compare
nsavoire
reviewed
Nov 5, 2025
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } else { | ||
| if (skip_free++ >= options.skip_free) { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
skip free is useful to check that we are able to detect leaks
| skip_free = 0; | ||
| if (options.keep_live_allocations > 0) { | ||
| if (p2 != nullptr) { | ||
| live_allocations.push_back(p2); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will trigger allocations in the middle of the loop allocations, which could make harder to understand exactly what is going on.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
What does this PR do?
The assumption is that users care more about invesitgating leaks. This is already not great in perf.
Motivation
Go back to putting addresses in close addresses in the same shard as this could be causing issues in memory usage.
Additional Notes
NA
How to test the change?
Once this is merged in main, I expect relenv deployments will be healthy.