Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork9.7k
[RateLimiter] Fix SlidingWindow calculations#47557
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
11da730 toe7a8d43Compared5629b0 toa585b4cComparefabpot added a commit that referenced this pull requestOct 1, 2023
…oeny)This PR was squashed before being merged into the 6.4 branch.Discussion----------[RateLimiter] Add SlidingWindowLimiter::reserve()| Q | A| ------------- | ---| Branch? | 6.4| Bug fix? | yes| New feature? | yes| Deprecations? | yes| Tickets |Fix#40289,Fixes#46875| License | MITThis implements `LimiterInterface->reserve()` for `SlidingWindowLimiter`. I'm not sure if the lack of implementation was due to time/scope or if it's actually not possible and my approach is incorrect. But I like to give it a try anyway. Perhaps `@wouterj` you could elaborate on that?The calculation does the following:1. Calculate tokens to be released within this window. E.g. if 4 were used in the last window, at 50% into the current, 2 are still to be released.2. Calculate the time-per-token within the remainder of the window. If the requested tokens will be available before the end of the current window, return the time-per-token * needed-tokens.3. Otherwise return time-per-token of the regular interval * needed-tokens(-after the current window).This wasn't a [bugfix](#51592), so back to feature PR. I couldn't reopen#47557, So had to create this new PR.Commits-------1b4a2df [RateLimiter] Add SlidingWindowLimiter::reserve()
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
This implements
LimiterInterface->reserve()forSlidingWindowLimiter. I'm not sure if the lack of implementation was due to time/scope or if it's actually not possible and my approach is incorrect. But I like to give it a try anyway. Perhaps@wouterj you could elaborate on that?The calculation does the following:
Some other things I've noticed in the RateLimiter:
FixedWindowLimiteruses aWindowclass, whereasSlidingWindowLimiteruses aSlidingWindow. Shouldn't the first have aFixedWindowclass?Windowclass takes its$windowSizeas argument,SlidingWindowdoes not. Perhaps the latter could also take this argument in this PR, since it's used in the calculation. But I guess those classes have to be backwards compatible.SlidingWindow->getRetryAfter()is no longer used and could be deprecated in favor ofcalculateTimeForTokens. Making it more like the fixed window.Edit: This shouldfix#40289, I've added it to the QA table.