[Libguestfs] [PATCH libguestfs 1/2] ocaml/implicit_close test: collect all currently unreachable blocks

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 5/31/23 13:13, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:32:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 11:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>>>> Fixes failing implice_close test on OCaml 5.
>>>> ---
>>>>  ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml | 4 ++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml b/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml
>>>> index 567e550b4..5e00c21ac 100644
>>>> --- a/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml
>>>> +++ b/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml
>>>> @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ let () =
>>>>   *)
>>>>  
>>>>  (* This should cause the GC to close the handle. *)
>>>> -let () = Gc.compact ()
>>>> +let () = Gc.full_major ()
>>>>  
>>>>  let () = assert  (!close_invoked = 1)
>>>>  
>>>> -let () = Gc.compact ()
>>>> +let () = Gc.full_major ()
>>>
>>> I don't understand this patch at all.  If there a test failing we need
>>> to diagnose why it is failing, not paper over the symptoms.
>>>
>>> What is the exact failure?
>>
>> Well my assumption is that (a) we need to force a garbage collection for
>> the (unreachable) handle to be closed actually (from earlier, nothing
>> new regarding that), but (b) with OCaml 5, "compact" is not strong
>> enough for that, while "full_major" is. Whether that means OCaml 5
>> changed the semantics of these functions, or that even with OCaml 4
>> we've only (consistently) lucky with "compact", I can't tell.
> 
> So it turns out there is a difference between OCaml 4.14 and 5 here.
> 
> In 4.14:
> 
> Gc.compact finishes the current major cycle and then compacts the
> heap:
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/74fe398bbe2e53db21a998356b042c232d42a4d8/runtime/gc_ctrl.c#L625
> 
> Gc.full_major finishes the major cycle and then sometimes compacts the
> heap based on a threshold of how much heap is being used:
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/74fe398bbe2e53db21a998356b042c232d42a4d8/runtime/gc_ctrl.c#L579
> 
> So Gc.full_major is (kind of) a subset of Gc.compact, which (mostly)
> matches the documentation.
> 
> In 5.0:
> 
> Gc.compact finishes the major cycle, and as far as I can tell doesn't
> compact the heap (bug?!):
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/ffb2022797986324213891a59c02af46269b5c17/runtime/gc_ctrl.c#L297
> 
> But the big difference is Gc.full_major:
> 
> https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/ffb2022797986324213891a59c02af46269b5c17/runtime/gc_ctrl.c#L261
> 
> As you can see from a comment in the code, "[the new garbage
> collector] can require up to 3 GC cycles for a currently-unreachable
> object to be collected", and Gc.full_major does this.  (I don't
> believe this is true for the old GC in OCaml <= 4.)
> 
> So in 5.0 full_major is quite a different operation from compact.  It
> runs multiple major cycles to make sure everything is collected, and
> doesn't compact the heap, but then neither does Gc.compact which is no
> longer a superset of Gc.full_major.
> 
> The patch there is correct, for OCaml 5, but breaks OCaml 4,

Right, from your explanation above, this is what I've been expecting --
what works for OCaml 5 may not work for OCaml 4.

In fact I don't understand the OCaml runtime's developers -- this is a
compatibility breaking change! Every project that uses the Gc module
will have to add compat code (version checking) now.

> so it
> should probably have some kind of conditional on the OCaml version.
> It also needs a much clearer explanation.

Thanks
Laszlo