Free holding cells immediately rather than in message sending #4320
+159
−106
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
|
I've assigned @valentinewallace as a reviewer! |
I noted in review for an unrelated PR that adding more per-channel logic in `ChannelManager::get_and_clear_pending_msg_events` really sucks for our performance, especially if it ends up hitting a sync monitor persistence. This made me wonder how far we actually are from not needing the holding `check_free_holding_cells` call that's currently there. Turns out, at least according to our functional test coverage, the answer is "not very far". Thus, here we drop it in favor of consistently calling a new util method on channels that might have the ability to release holding cell updates in the same lock where they change state, rather than waiting until `get_and_clear_pending_msg_events`. We still process async monitor events in `get_and_clear_pending_msg_events`, which can lead to channel (and monitor) updates, but that should only be the case for async persist applications, which then are likely to have fast `ChannelMonitorUpdate` in-line handling logic (cause its async).
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2026-01-live-holding-cells
branch
from
d6c4618 to
cad88af
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4320 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 86.61% 86.62%
=======================================
Files 158 158
Lines 102730 102752 +22
Branches 102730 102752 +22
=======================================
+ Hits 88977 89006 +29
+ Misses 11335 11332 -3
+ Partials 2418 2414 -4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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.
I noted in review for an unrelated PR that adding more per-channel logic in
ChannelManager::get_and_clear_pending_msg_eventsreally sucks for our performance, especially if it ends up hitting a sync monitor persistence. This made me wonder how far we actually are from not needing the holdingcheck_free_holding_cellscall that's currently there.Turns out, at least according to our functional test coverage, the answer is "not very far".
Thus, here we drop it in favor of consistently calling a new util method on channels that might have the ability to release holding cell updates in the same lock where they change state, rather than waiting until
get_and_clear_pending_msg_events.We still process async monitor events in
get_and_clear_pending_msg_events, which can lead to channel (and monitor) updates, but that should only be the case for async persist applications, which then are likely to have fastChannelMonitorUpdatein-line handling logic (cause its async).