Concurrently download components of a toolchain #4436
Conversation
|
For reference, the current download of components (sequential) looks like this:
... and the changes introduced by this PR go like this:
Please note that both animations were sped up and they are not meaningful for comparing performances. |
FranciscoTGouveia
force-pushed
the
concurrent-downloads
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3a7ac67 to
10d1514
Compare
Some notifications needed to be updated to include the download URL, enabling the identification of the component being downloaded. This was necessary for accurate progress reporting of each component.
FranciscoTGouveia
force-pushed
the
concurrent-downloads
branch
from
10d1514 to
7093333
Compare
| if let Some(pb) = self.find_progress_bar(file) { | ||
| pb.set_style( | ||
| ProgressStyle::with_template( | ||
| "{msg:>12.bold} downloaded {total_bytes} in {elapsed}.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: . should be omitted to be coherent with the general notification style.
| self.progress_bar.set_length(content_len); | ||
| self.progress_bar.set_style( | ||
| /// Helper function to find the progress bar for a given file. | ||
| fn find_progress_bar(&mut self, file: &str) -> Option<&mut ProgressBar> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: progress_bar() would be a better name according to the API style guide.
| .file_progress_bars | ||
| .keys() | ||
| .find(|comp| file.contains(*comp)) | ||
| .cloned()?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should not be necessary to clone this component given that we will immediately refer to it.
| .await; | ||
| for result in results { | ||
| match result { | ||
| Ok((component, format, downloaded_file, hash)) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Isn't this just let (...) = result?;?
| .with_context(|| { | ||
| RustupError::ComponentDownloadFailed(component.name(new_manifest)) | ||
| })?; | ||
| Ok::<(Component, CompressionKind, File, String), Error>(( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this annotation be simpler, say Ok::<_, Error>?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we can simply drop the annotation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I was addressing the previous nit, I have came to the conclusion that this is necessary. Sorry for the confusion.
| @@ -14,11 +14,11 @@ pub enum Notification<'a> { | |||
| RemovingDirectory(&'a str, &'a Path), | |||
| DownloadingFile(&'a Url, &'a Path), | |||
| /// Received the Content-Length of the to-be downloaded data. | |||
| DownloadContentLengthReceived(u64), | |||
| DownloadContentLengthReceived(u64, &'a str), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you mind explaining the meaning of "" here and why they are required? It might be an interesting addition to the doc comments as well.
| ) | ||
| .unwrap() | ||
| .progress_chars("## "), | ||
| ); | ||
| pb.set_message(component.to_string()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: .to_string() doesn't seem necessary here...
As of now, each component of a toolchain is downloaded sequentially, leaving room for performance improvements.
This is particularly notorious when considering interleaving downloads with installation, as discussed in #731.
Following the work made in #4426, as the
DownloadTrackeris nowindicatif-based, doing the progress reporting for concurrent downloads is much easier.As such, this PR comes to enable downloading different components concurrently (possibly closing #3018).
Performance-wise, benchmarks using
hyperfineshowed a small (1.1x) speedup -- which doesn't seem noticeable but lays the foundations for a future PR to interleave the download with the installation (of components).The benchmarks were ran 50 times (with 5 warmup runs) over a 50 Mbps connection, each downloading an entire toolchain.
Many thanks to @rami3l and his PR for refactoring part of the test suite for the purpose of this PR.