-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 439
Avoid draining the ArrayPool with undisposed JsonDocuments #2258
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
Merged
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
My understanding is this code is likely going to be overhauled to not use JsonDocument at all, but in the meantime we can make a small tweak to significantly improve throughput. JsonDocument.Parse creates a JsonDocument backed by one or more ArrayPool arrays; those arrays are returned when the instance is disposed. If it's never disposed, the arrays are never returned to the pool. That means that creating but not disposing lots of JsonDocument instances ends up incurring the cost (and contention) of searching the ArrayPool but ends up falling back to allocating anyway. The problem is that JsonClaimSet isn't disposable and so the underlying JsonDocument is never disposed. As a patch until the code is overhauled, we can use JsonElement.Clone(), which creates a new JsonDocument not backed by ArrayPool arrays... we can then dispose of the original in order to return the arrays to the pool. This still isn't ideal, as we're doing more allocating and copying than we'd like, but it ends up being much better than without.
Collaborator
Author
jmprieur
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2023
Contributor
jmprieur
left a comment
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.
LGTM
Thanks @jennyf19
keegan-caruso
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2023
This was referenced Aug 29, 2025
This was referenced Sep 9, 2025
This was referenced Nov 28, 2025
Sign up for free
to 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.
My understanding is this code is likely going to be overhauled to not use JsonDocument at all, but in the meantime we can make a small tweak to significantly improve throughput. JsonDocument.Parse creates a JsonDocument backed by one or more ArrayPool arrays; those arrays are returned when the instance is disposed. If it's never disposed, the arrays are never returned to the pool. That means that creating but not disposing lots of JsonDocument instances ends up incurring the cost (and contention) of searching the ArrayPool but ends up falling back to allocating anyway.
The problem is that JsonClaimSet isn't disposable and so the underlying JsonDocument is never disposed. As a patch until the code is overhauled, we can use JsonElement.Clone(), which creates a new JsonDocument not backed by ArrayPool arrays... we can then dispose of the original in order to return the arrays to the pool.
This still isn't ideal, as we're doing more allocating and copying than we'd like, but it ends up being much better than without.