-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
lazy_static rhai Engine #112
Closed
Closed
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The original version of enforce is lock-free, will this change makes
enforce
can't handle concurrent request because every request have to wait for the write lock.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if it matters, I can't get it to panic even using
RwLock::try_write
in either an async spawned context or on a std thread. The only way to pass theEnforcer
to a thread or anasync_std::spawn
is to wrap it in some type of sync control. I'm pushing another commit mostly to show the test I wrote for this. If you can think of any other ways to pass this into concurrent execution it'd be great to add them to the test.This also reminds me I was wondering about using
async_std::sync::RwLock/Mutex
instead of std's RwLock/Mutex. There is a discussion about this sort of hereThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we do have only one enforcer, it's ok to use lazy_static, but I would say if the users created multiple enforcers. It will cause problems because basically they will share the same
Engine
and the more enforcers we have, the worser result we get. => This is also why I removed lazy_static event emitter from the code@xcaptain @DevinR528 I think inline engine, scope will improve bench about 15%, but yes I didn't succeed to implement it yesterday due to lifetime issue.
May try again in the future
@DevinR528 You are right we shouldn't use
std::sync::RwLock
to wrap a type which implemented many async functions. Because.await
requiresSend
andstd::sync::RwLockGuard
is not send. That causes also difficutiles when I try to implement a clonableSyncedEnforcer
, which is basicallyArc<RwLock<Enforcer/CachedEnforcer>>
. This maybe out of topicThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of just one
Engine
could you have a lazy_staticArc<Mutex<Vec<Engine>>>
and every timeEnforcer::new
is called you push a newEngine
into the vec and assign an index for thatEnforcer
instance? I'm going to make a somewhat educated guess that the lifetime issues may be insurmountable 😢, basically the lifetime of the &str's passed toScope::push_constant
become the lifetime of the&mut self
borrow forEnforcer::enforce
and there doesn't seem to be a way to say a lifetime that is smaller than the lifetime of theEnforcer
struct which is what you need.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@DevinR528
Arc<Mutex<Vec<Engine>>>
still require write access, it means when one enforcer is enforcing, there won't be any other enforcer can acquire a engine.I believe
rhai::Engine
's lifetime is to for the registered functions.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahh right the vec won't work at all. I had one more idea creating a lockless AtomicPtr struct that has a flag for when the
Engine
is in use and either starts we a fewEngine
s or adds to a vec as needed.