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

chore: Use pool of bytes.Buffer instead of io.Pipe #13543

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 17, 2024

Conversation

grobinson-grafana
Copy link
Contributor

@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana commented Jul 16, 2024

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR uses a pool of bytes.Buffer instead of io.Pipe.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

  • Reviewed the CONTRIBUTING.md guide (required)
  • Documentation added
  • Tests updated
  • Title matches the required conventional commits format, see here
    • Note that Promtail is considered to be feature complete, and future development for logs collection will be in Grafana Alloy. As such, feat PRs are unlikely to be accepted unless a case can be made for the feature actually being a bug fix to existing behavior.
  • Changes that require user attention or interaction to upgrade are documented in docs/sources/setup/upgrade/_index.md
  • For Helm chart changes bump the Helm chart version in production/helm/loki/Chart.yaml and update production/helm/loki/CHANGELOG.md and production/helm/loki/README.md. Example PR
  • If the change is deprecating or removing a configuration option, update the deprecated-config.yaml and deleted-config.yaml files respectively in the tools/deprecated-config-checker directory. Example PR

@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana self-assigned this Jul 16, 2024
@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana requested a review from a team as a code owner July 16, 2024 18:42
Copy link
Contributor

@cyriltovena cyriltovena left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lgtm

}()

buf := i.flushBuffers.Get().(*bytes.Buffer)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: if we can avoid a pool by scoping this to the segment writer or the flush worker it's better

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can do concurrent flushes (in the case where write volume is more than 8MB/sec) so I think we want a pool?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh I misunderstood. Let me do that :)

@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana force-pushed the grobinson/use-buffer-instead-of-pipe branch from 9a4c624 to f7bb072 Compare July 17, 2024 06:01
@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana merged commit a03e3d3 into main Jul 17, 2024
60 checks passed
@grobinson-grafana grobinson-grafana deleted the grobinson/use-buffer-instead-of-pipe branch July 17, 2024 06:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants