Drop forgotten jobs in another thread #1065
Merged
Conversation
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
To avoid blocking the event loop.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
job-forget-async
branch
from
c915499 to
ef3c161
Compare
spirali
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
To avoid blocking the event loop.
I examined the code and I think that dropping the jobs is actually the most time consuming activity that happens there. The number of jobs will usually be at most in hundreds or thousands, so shifting the Vecs and reclaiming their memory shouldn't take that much time, even when taking memory (de)fragmentation into consideration.
What can take a lot of time is running
Dropon a million of tasks though :)Edit: actually,
Core::try_release_memoryalso shrinks theTaskMap, so I guess that can take a lot of time too. Let's check if this PR solves the issues, and if not, we'll have to somehow interleave those shrinks with the event loop too.Related issue: #1064