Revert "Support cancellation of timer operations" #112
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Also pinging @LiberalArtist whom I cannot add to "Reviewers". |
|
Apologies for overlooking #110 (comment) ! Hopefully we can find a solution that does not involve reverting everything, such as using an atomic box as I suggested there. Let me know what you think. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Reverts #110, because it introduces a concurrency bug #110 (comment) and it is being ignored. This is not only an elegance preference, this is a correctness issue.
timer-wheel-remove!is not an atomic procedure, so callers shouldn't fiddle with timer wheels of other schedulers.Also, it might even happen without concurrent use of the same operation, because work-stealing exists.
Before that PR, it is a heap growth issue (though not precisely a 'never free' situation, more 'overly delayed free'). Replacing this by a concurrency issue (and in a concurrency library) isn't really an improvement.