Skip to content
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

vm: fix vm.measureMemory() and introduce execution option #32988

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

nodejs/node-v8#147 broke the
vm.measureMemory() API. It only created a MeasureMemoryDelegate and
without actually calling v8::Isolate::MeasureMemory() so the returned
promise will never resolve. This was not caught by the tests because
the promise resolvers were not wrapped with common.mustCall().

This patch migrates the API properly and also introduce the newly
added execution option to the API. It also removes support for
specifying contexts to measure - instead we'll just return the
measurements for all contexts in the detailed mode, which is
what the performance.measureMemory() prototype in V8 currently does.
We can consider implementing our own v8::MeasureMemoryDelegate
to select the target context in ShouldMeasure() in the future,
but then we'll also need to implement MeasurementComplete()
to assemble the result. For now it's probably too early to do that.

Since this API is still experimental (and guarded with a warning),
such breakage should be acceptable.

Refs: nodejs/node-v8#147

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

nodejs/node-v8#147 broke the
`vm.measureMemory()` API. It only created a `MeasureMemoryDelegate` and
without actually calling `v8::Isolate::MeasureMemory()` so the returned
promise will never resolve. This was not caught by the tests because
the promise resolvers were not wrapped with `common.mustCall()`.

This patch migrates the API properly and also introduce the newly
added execution option to the API. It also removes support for
specifying contexts to measure - instead we'll just return the
measurements for all contexts in the detailed mode, which is
what the `performance.measureMemory()` prototype in V8 currently does.
We can consider implementing our own `v8::MeasureMemoryDelegate`
to select the target context in `ShouldMeasure()` in the future,
but then we'll also need to implement `MeasurementComplete()`
to assemble the result. For now it's probably too early to do that.

Since this API is still experimental (and guarded with a warning),
such breakage should be acceptable.

Refs: nodejs/node-v8#147
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. vm Issues and PRs related to the vm subsystem. labels Apr 22, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

doc/api/vm.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM modulo the lint warnings.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

joyeecheung added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2020
nodejs/node-v8#147 broke the
`vm.measureMemory()` API. It only created a `MeasureMemoryDelegate` and
without actually calling `v8::Isolate::MeasureMemory()` so the returned
promise will never resolve. This was not caught by the tests because
the promise resolvers were not wrapped with `common.mustCall()`.

This patch migrates the API properly and also introduce the newly
added execution option to the API. It also removes support for
specifying contexts to measure - instead we'll just return the
measurements for all contexts in the detailed mode, which is
what the `performance.measureMemory()` prototype in V8 currently does.
We can consider implementing our own `v8::MeasureMemoryDelegate`
to select the target context in `ShouldMeasure()` in the future,
but then we'll also need to implement `MeasurementComplete()`
to assemble the result. For now it's probably too early to do that.

Since this API is still experimental (and guarded with a warning),
such breakage should be acceptable.

Refs: nodejs/node-v8#147

PR-URL: #32988
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Jiawen Geng <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member Author

Landed in 5f2c4ce

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2020
nodejs/node-v8#147 broke the
`vm.measureMemory()` API. It only created a `MeasureMemoryDelegate` and
without actually calling `v8::Isolate::MeasureMemory()` so the returned
promise will never resolve. This was not caught by the tests because
the promise resolvers were not wrapped with `common.mustCall()`.

This patch migrates the API properly and also introduce the newly
added execution option to the API. It also removes support for
specifying contexts to measure - instead we'll just return the
measurements for all contexts in the detailed mode, which is
what the `performance.measureMemory()` prototype in V8 currently does.
We can consider implementing our own `v8::MeasureMemoryDelegate`
to select the target context in `ShouldMeasure()` in the future,
but then we'll also need to implement `MeasurementComplete()`
to assemble the result. For now it's probably too early to do that.

Since this API is still experimental (and guarded with a warning),
such breakage should be acceptable.

Refs: nodejs/node-v8#147

PR-URL: #32988
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Jiawen Geng <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request May 4, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. vm Issues and PRs related to the vm subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants