-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.1k
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
[v4.x] deps: revert/re-apply 09db540 from upstream v8 #14829
Conversation
This reverts commit 2d07fd7, with the exception of the `V8_PATCH_LEVEL` which will continue to increase. This commit was intended to be a backport of v8's e093a04 and 09db540, but it failed to consider the reversion of e093a04 in 5f5a328.
Original commit messages: v8/v8@09db540 Reland of Rehash and clear deleted entries in weak collections during GC BUG=v8:4909 R=hpayer@chromium.org,ulan@chromium.org LOG=n Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1890123002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#35538} v8/v8@686558d Fix comment about when we rehash ObjectHashTables before growing them R=ulan@chromium.org BUG= Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1918403003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#35853} Refs: https://crbug.com/v8/4909 Refs: nodejs#6180 Refs: nodejs#7689 Refs: nodejs#6398 Fixes: nodejs#14228
@nodejs/v8 @MylesBorins |
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.
ping @nodejs/lts |
test of v4.8.4 for comparison ci: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/11812/ |
This reverts commit 2d07fd7, with the exception of the `V8_PATCH_LEVEL` which will continue to increase. This commit was intended to be a backport of v8's e093a04 and 09db540, but it failed to consider the reversion of e093a04 in 5f5a328. PR-URL: #14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Original commit messages: v8/v8@09db540 Reland of Rehash and clear deleted entries in weak collections during GC BUG=v8:4909 R=hpayer@chromium.org,ulan@chromium.org LOG=n Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1890123002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35538} v8/v8@686558d Fix comment about when we rehash ObjectHashTables before growing them R=ulan@chromium.org BUG= Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1918403003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35853} Refs: https://crbug.com/v8/4909 Refs: #6180 Refs: #7689 Refs: #6398 Fixes: #14228 PR-URL: #14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Failures in CI are unrelated |
Meteor is considering shipping a version of Node 4.8.4 with this patch, just until 4.8.5 is out. Do you (@MylesBorins, @nodejs/lts, et al.) have any guidance about (1) whether that's a terrible idea, and (2) when 4.8.5 might be released? |
@benjamn floating the patch is not a terrible idea next v4.x is likely in October, but perhaps we should ship it in september as the backlog is building have an issue open about it nodejs/Release#241 |
This reverts commit 2d07fd7, with the exception of the `V8_PATCH_LEVEL` which will continue to increase. This commit was intended to be a backport of v8's e093a04 and 09db540, but it failed to consider the reversion of e093a04 in 5f5a328. PR-URL: #14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Original commit messages: v8/v8@09db540 Reland of Rehash and clear deleted entries in weak collections during GC BUG=v8:4909 R=hpayer@chromium.org,ulan@chromium.org LOG=n Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1890123002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35538} v8/v8@686558d Fix comment about when we rehash ObjectHashTables before growing them R=ulan@chromium.org BUG= Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1918403003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35853} Refs: https://crbug.com/v8/4909 Refs: #6180 Refs: #7689 Refs: #6398 Fixes: #14228 PR-URL: #14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
This reverts commit 2d07fd7, with the exception of the `V8_PATCH_LEVEL` which will continue to increase. This commit was intended to be a backport of v8's e093a04 and 09db540, but it failed to consider the reversion of e093a04 in 5f5a328. PR-URL: nodejs/node#14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Original commit messages: v8/v8@09db540 Reland of Rehash and clear deleted entries in weak collections during GC BUG=v8:4909 R=hpayer@chromium.org,ulan@chromium.org LOG=n Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1890123002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35538} v8/v8@686558d Fix comment about when we rehash ObjectHashTables before growing them R=ulan@chromium.org BUG= Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/1918403003 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#35853} Refs: https://crbug.com/v8/4909 Refs: nodejs/node#6180 Refs: nodejs/node#7689 Refs: nodejs/node#6398 Fixes: nodejs/node#14228 PR-URL: nodejs/node#14829 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
This PR aims to fix an improperly applied backport to the v8 deps on the v4.x series.
As discussed and discovered in #14228, the original intention of 3e8d7a7 was to apply v8/v8@e093a04 and v8/v8@09db540 but that backport commit failed to consider that the former commit (
e093
) was reverted in v8/v8@5f5a328. This led to inadvertent changes (which were never present on v8) toMarkCompactCollector::ClearWeakCollections
being left in place on the Node.js 4.x series, in addition to the (incorrect) changes to theweakset
andweakmap
tests.That
MarkCompactCollector
change is directly responsible for some errors, specifically noted in the stack traces of the post-mortems reported by myself and others in #14228 and meteor/meteor#8970 (comment).Furthermore, while the correct fix to v8 was meant to apply the "Wipe deleted entries" logic to
HashTable::Rehash
it was also applied toCompilationCacheTable::Age
as well. You'll note that an additional, seemingly arbitrarycapacity
variable needed to be declared in the backport which was not present in the original patch. Not too surprising as the patch applies cleanly to that class as well, albeit with a several thousand line patch offset. (This caught me off guard during debugging as well and it looks as if the v8 team was also bit by this temporarily in v8/v8@59c7657!)In this process, I also took the liberty to backport the very relevant v8/v8@686558d which corrects the comment on the original commit.
It's my belief that this now matches up with the intended fix for #6180 and crbug.com/v8/4909 and also maintains relevant follow-ups, such as v8/v8@b93c80a6 and v8/v8@a76d133f.
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
V8 Engine
This is my first v8 commit, so happy to adjust accordingly, but this is what I've found!