Analyze additional places where there is timer handle churn

[bdraco]

          > Yep, thinking about it more, this is part of the low-level API that most users shouldn't interact with. So, I guess we should be dealing with this limitation.

Other places that might be improved:

client_proto.py:read_timeout: We cancel and reschedule everytime data is received.

I think it might be worth doing. It fires far less often than websockets though. Need to do some more profiling with this one.

client_ws.py: Do we need to deal with _pong_response_cb too? Cancelled and rescheduled on each heartbeat send.

This is a rare case where its almost never rescheduled since we expect it to respond right away or be closed. Its probably not worth optimizing.

web_protocol.py:.keep_alive(): Should we cancel if the val is already the same and a handle already exists?

This one doesn't seem to get rescheduled frequently when I looked at the profile.

Maybe some issues in connector.py if there are many connections that are getting closed.

cleanup_closed could use some improvements. Something to investigate for sure.

Also, helpers.py:TimeoutHandle is only used once in client.py and seems like something that could be replaced by asyncio.timeout(). We'd need to use asyncio.Timeout.reschedule() in the resp.connection callback.

That looks like a good opportunity to cleanup there.

Originally posted by @bdraco in #8608 (comment)

[Dreamsorcerer]

web_protocol.py:.keep_alive(): Should we cancel if the val is already the same and a handle already exists?

This one doesn't seem to get rescheduled frequently when I looked at the profile.

For this one, I just figured it'd be a one-line fix to add an if statement in, which could reduce the impact even if it's not hit often.

[bdraco]

cleanup_closed could use some improvements. Something to investigate for sure.

This one is heavy. Should make it a priority. It might just be because of the 2.0 second interval

[bdraco]

The cleanup_closed case is because its every 2.0. HA changed it to 60.0 but there are lot of places where libs don't use HA's subclassed connector so we still see it there. 2.0s might be too frequent, but I'm not sure how safe it is to increase for the generate use case.

[bdraco]

web_protocol.py:.keep_alive(): Should we cancel if the val is already the same and a handle already exists?

This one doesn't seem to get rescheduled frequently when I looked at the profile.

For this one, I just figured it'd be a one-line fix to add an if statement in, which could reduce the impact even if it's not hit often.

Testing a solution in #8662

[bdraco]

I didn't see client_proto.py:_reschedule_timeout ever schedule a timer because it looks like everything in HA is using a total timeout and not a read timeout.

Its going to churn if there is a read timeout but that seems like its going to be a more rare case

[Dreamsorcerer]

Its going to churn if there is a read timeout but that seems like its going to be a more rare case

As long as it's not affected by sock_connect timeout, which we're trying to add by default: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/pull/7368/files#diff-f334e752b4894ef951105572ab8b195aeb8db90eb6e48b1dfbd9a01da4c854f5R166

[bdraco]

Its going to churn if there is a read timeout but that seems like its going to be a more rare case

As long as it's not affected by sock_connect timeout, which we're trying to add by default: #7368 (files)

Looks like that won't affect it AFAICT

[Dreamsorcerer]

@bdraco Probably a good idea to edit the original message into a checklist, so we can which have already been done?