On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Carter Schonwald <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> agreed! Applications that lack explicit logic for handling heavy workloads 
> (ie producers outpacing consumers for a sustained period) are the most common 
> culprit for unresponsive desktop applications that become completely 
> unusable. 

That’s a pretty strong claim, and one I would have to disagree with quite 
strongly. Every time I’ve sampled an unresponsive application, I don’t think 
I’ve ever seen a backtrace that suggests a producer outpacing a consumer.

-Kevin

> relatedly: would not bounded but programmatically growable channels also make 
> it trivial to provide a "unbounded" style channel abstraction? (not that i'm 
> advocating that, merely that it seems like it would turn the unbounded 
> channel abstraction into an equivalent one that is resource usage aware)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:52 AM, György Andrasek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 11:13 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> So I think that entire line of reasoning is a red herring. People
> writing toy programs that never have their channels fill beyond a small
> number of messages won't care either way.
> 
> However, overloaded programs + queues bounded by system resources are a
> production outage waiting to happen. What's really important here is
> providing a means of backpressure so overloaded Rust programs don't grow
> until they consume system resources and OOM.
> 
> While I disagree with the notion that all programs which don't have their 
> bottlenecks right here are "toys", we should definitely strive for the 
> invariant that task failure does not cause independent tasks to fail.
> 
> Also, OOM is not free. If you manage to go OOM on a desktop, you'll get a 
> *very* unhappy user, regardless of their expectations wrt your memory usage. 
> Linux with a spinning disk and swap for example will degrade to the point 
> where they'll reboot before the OOM killer kicks in.
> 
> Can we PLEASE not do that *by default*?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev

_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev

Reply via email to