[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

labath reopened this revision. labath added a comment. :( Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152364/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152364 ___ lldb-commits mailing list

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGc30853460da7: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish] (authored by labath). Repository: rG

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

labath added a comment. Actually, thinking about these "unique" events, I think it would be worth trying out sending the progress update events as "unique". Depending on where exactly in the pipeline the congestion happens, it might just be enough to fix the immediate problem. If the slow

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

labath added a comment. In D152364#4406589 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > Continuing some of the discussion from D150805 > here as it mostly relates to this patch: > > In D150805#4402906

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

JDevlieghere added a comment. In D152364#4406704 , @saugustine wrote: > What other progress reporting needs rate limiting? > > To the best of my knowledge, we have only identified one location--this one. > So I'm not sure a fully general solution is in

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

saugustine added a comment. What other progress reporting needs rate limiting? To the best of my knowledge, we have only identified one location--this one. So I'm not sure a fully general solution is in order here under the YAGNI principle. I favor rate limiting close to the source because

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

JDevlieghere added a comment. Continuing some of the discussion from D150805 here as it mostly relates to this patch: In D150805#4402906 , @labath wrote: > I agree that we should have a rate limiting mechanism very

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D152364: [lldb] Rate limit progress reports -- different approach [WIP-ish]

labath created this revision. labath added reviewers: JDevlieghere, saugustine, rupprecht. Herald added a project: All. labath requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Have the Progress class spawn a thread to periodically send progress reports. The reporting period could