Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(286)

Issue 1997623002: Revert of [BlobAsync] Fixed race between IPC messages and IO task queue (Closed)

Created:
4 years, 7 months ago by Sami
Modified:
4 years, 7 months ago
Reviewers:
michaeln, dmurph
CC:
chromium-reviews, darin-cc_chromium.org, jam
Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Revert of [BlobAsync] Fixed race between IPC messages and IO task queue (patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/1988293002/ ) Reason for revert: The oortonline benchmark started failing to load blobs around the time this landed, so I'll do a speculative revert. Failure log: https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.perf/builders/Mac%20Retina%20Perf%20%285%29/builds/3008/steps/oortonline/logs/stdio/text Original issue's description: > [BlobAsync] Fixed race between IPC messages and IO task queue > > The message responses to our blob start message are dispatched on the IO > thread but they're not added to the task queue. So a race can happen > where OnMemoryRequest is called before we store the consolidation in our > map. > > I moved the StartBuildingBlob message - which signals the browser to > start requesting memory from the renderer - to our IO task which stores > our blob data. This eliminates the race case with a small sacrifice of > construction speed. > > In the future, I'd like to be able to still dispatch both IPC messages > right away to keep the fast path, and correctly handle the race case. > > BUG=612358 > > Committed: https://crrev.com/65a8fb95a8c71a7be8515f5e1c8125b04a477716 > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#394549} TBR=michaeln@chromium.org,dmurph@chromium.org # Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago. NOPRESUBMIT=true NOTREECHECKS=true NOTRY=true BUG=612358 Committed: https://crrev.com/723cf1bf74560eb41120c1bf94eaaa38115203d0 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#394740}

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+18 lines, -21 lines) Patch
M content/child/blob_storage/blob_transport_controller.h View 1 chunk +1 line, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M content/child/blob_storage/blob_transport_controller.cc View 2 chunks +14 lines, -16 lines 0 comments Download
M content/child/blob_storage/blob_transport_controller_unittest.cc View 1 chunk +3 lines, -3 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 8 (2 generated)
Sami
Created Revert of [BlobAsync] Fixed race between IPC messages and IO task queue
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-19 11:40:47 UTC) #1
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1997623002/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1997623002/1
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-19 11:41:09 UTC) #2
commit-bot: I haz the power
Committed patchset #1 (id:1)
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-19 11:41:41 UTC) #4
commit-bot: I haz the power
Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/723cf1bf74560eb41120c1bf94eaaa38115203d0 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#394740}
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-19 11:43:20 UTC) #6
Sami
To give an update I think this worked -- here's the green build after the ...
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-20 11:12:02 UTC) #7
dmurph
4 years, 7 months ago (2016-05-23 18:03:11 UTC) #8
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/05/20 at 11:12:02, skyostil wrote:
> To give an update I think this worked -- here's the green build after the
revert landed:
> 
>
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.perf/builders/Mac%20Retina%20Perf%20%28...
> 
> For some reason the blame list shows the revert in the previous build (which
was still red):
> 
>
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.perf/builders/Mac%20Retina%20Perf%20%28...
> 
> but if the revision (54e8895f6205ab1486db3a15e66b8832f12aa541) is accurate
then the revert actually wasn't in that build yet.

Yeah there was some flakiness in a past design with that benchmark, so I'm not
surprised that it started failing again. I don't know exactly why it was failing
though.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698