-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
[WIP] Change ExecutionContext.hpp/MemoryManager
in runtime to use smart pointers
#1284
Draft
paul0403
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
runtime_MemManager_SmartPtr
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Doesn't the implementation of erase will call the destructor of element equivalent to target? And since target is a std::shared_ptr it will decrement its reference count? This goes against what we want erase to do, which is to erase the pointer of the set which needs to be deleted. I.e., erase will make sure that the pointer is not free'd.
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.
Ah, so this class is kind of like the anti-smart_ptr, where we hold a "dead" pointer, waiting for it to potentially be recycled, and manually free the pointer once the holder itself goes out of scope?
I wasn't familiar with the context here and was just trying to fix clang tidy warnings, but now that I know I think this is one instance where we have to manually silence clang tidy. I reckon this can be closed then?
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.
No. It is like a unique_ptr. But with a way to not free the memory. If we knew they were dead, we would delete them. Essentially:
mlir_memref_free
is called, the pointer is removed from this set and freed.I call this an "arena-like" allocator, but it is not exactly an arena allocator.
Yes.
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.
Just as a note, this design you are proposing may work if you return a shared_pointer but erase it from the set. It is then up to the caller to keep the pointer alive.