Slow android Dispatchers.Main init #878

Tolriq · 2018-12-08T16:38:46Z

It seems Android Main dispatcher initialization / discovery can be quite slow currently.

On a Nokia 8 device my application startup time went from 250ms to 500ms (on release mode). I know that 250ms does not sound much but it's pretty much 2 times slower startup time and it does impact the users as they often want the fastest possible startup time for this kind of application. And I still have to see on older devices if the impact is 250ms or linear with the device power.

See attached flamechart (It's from the debug app with full trace profiling so the times are insanely slow but was necessary to find the issue).

Is there a way to bypass that slow factory discovery and statically create my own Main dispatcher on Android to avoid that slowdown?

JakeWharton · 2018-12-08T16:48:24Z

ServiceLoader should definitely be avoided on Android. I filed https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/120436373 recently to rewrite it in release builds.

elizarov · 2018-12-08T16:51:31Z

~~This is really strange. I see lot of time spent on reading manifest, but we do not use manifest to initialize Dispatchers.Main.~~

Is there any chance you can compare loading an app that uses Dispatchers.Main (dynamically loaded) vs static reference to Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).asCoroutineDispatcher() to see where exactly this additional time comes from?

UPDATE: Now I finally saw what is going on... OMG.

What would be the options that we have to avoid ServiceLoader? One option is that we can package a separate android-specific jar-artifact that comes pre-bundled with Android Main dispatcher, but then it'll be a pain to use with coroutine-using non-android specific libraries.

Tolriq · 2018-12-08T17:07:07Z

Does Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).asCoroutineDispatcher() provide the exact same thing?

https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/blob/master/ui/kotlinx-coroutines-android/src/HandlerDispatcher.kt seems to do a lot more.

Looking for temporary workaround as I can't really rollback now :)

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-08T19:30:21Z

What would be the options that we have to avoid ServiceLoader?

Class.forName :sigh:

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-08T19:32:12Z

Does Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).asCoroutineDispatcher() provide the exact same thing?

More or less, modulo createAsync

Tolriq · 2018-12-09T09:31:02Z

Did a quick test by duplicating the original code and making the Main public.
(I don't know why but I was not able to use the usual package trick to access still some Kotlin mysteries)

The gain is more in the 100/125ms seems I have something else to find, Maybe 100ms is less important and can wait for the R8 solution, providing a simple public getter for the rare people that will notice and care about it in the meantime could be enough?

elizarov · 2018-12-09T20:00:51Z

What and why is exactly slow in ServiceLoader on Android?

What if we write our own (compatible) implementation that uses ClassLoader.getResources to get the corresponding META-INF/service/xxx files and parses them. Would it be fast or just as slow?

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-10T11:13:03Z

In the attached flamegraph most of the time is spent in signed JAR verification.
Though I am not sure the same issue arises in release-mode dex: there is no separate JAR and it can be verified only once on startup, not during service loading.

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-10T13:30:50Z

It appears that JAR is verified all the time even in dex.
We can write our own ServiceLoader and avoid verification (it is a matter of one JarFile constructor parameter) ~~if it gives a real performance boost~~.

UPD.
In emulator with shrinked dex sample code that reads a class name from JAR manifest, data points:
Without verification: 20, 30, 23 ms
With verification: 485, 366, 449 ms

But I am not sure whether we should write it: it will add maintenance burden, it may not work on some devices (especially on new androidx where even default SL breaks in some versions).

Example of how to read service name without verification on Android:

val service = "META-INF/services/kotlinx.coroutines.internal.MainDispatcherFactory"
val url = this.javaClass.classLoader.getResources(service).toList()[0]
val string = url.toString()
val separatorIndex = string.indexOf('!')
val pathToJar = string.substring(0, separatorIndex)
val entry = string.substring(separatorIndex + 2, string.length)
val file = JarFile(pathToJar.substring("jar:file:/".length), false)
BufferedReader(InputStreamReader(file.getInputStream(ZipEntry(entry)), "UTF-8")).useLines {
    it.forEach { println(it) } // prints AndroidDispatcherFactory
}

Tolriq · 2018-12-10T13:41:37Z

Maybe I was not clear but the given values where from production app in release mode and heavily optimized ;)

If you do nothing I would highly appreciate to have a public getter in https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/blob/master/ui/kotlinx-coroutines-android/src/HandlerDispatcher.kt for those who care about the delay in application init.

Currently it seems Kotlin prevent using a package trick to access the internal Main, leading to necessary code duplication just to pass the var public and avoid the issue.

Maybe add another public alias with a clear name / Kdoc about it's usage not recommended?

Tolriq · 2018-12-12T08:43:34Z

One more detail, I got some ANR in prod due to that too.

Probably due to accessing file from main thread on a busy file system.

"main" prio=5 tid=1 Runnable
  | group="main" sCount=0 dsCount=0 flags=0 obj=0x71e769a8 self=0xb303a000
  | sysTid=8148 nice=0 cgrp=default sched=0/0 handle=0xb6e794a4
  | state=R schedstat=( 688284631 7931945867 493 ) utm=46 stm=22 core=0 HZ=100
  | stack=0xbe505000-0xbe507000 stackSize=8MB
  | held mutexes= "mutator lock"(shared held)
  at java.util.HashMap.put (HashMap.java:611)
  at sun.security.util.ManifestDigester.<init> (ManifestDigester.java:170)
  at java.util.jar.JarVerifier.processEntry (JarVerifier.java:290)
- locked <0x0c34e60a> (a byte[])
  at java.util.jar.JarVerifier.update (JarVerifier.java:229)
  at java.util.jar.JarFile.initializeVerifier (JarFile.java:374)
  at java.util.jar.JarFile.getInputStream (JarFile.java:441)
- locked <0x06592e7b> (a java.util.jar.JarFile)
  at libcore.io.ClassPathURLStreamHandler$ClassPathURLConnection.getInputStream (ClassPathURLStreamHandler.java:177)
  at java.net.URL.openStream (URL.java:1058)
  at java.util.ServiceLoader.parse (ServiceLoader.java:305)
  at java.util.ServiceLoader.-wrap0 (ServiceLoader.java)
  at java.util.ServiceLoader$LazyIterator.hasNextService (ServiceLoader.java:358)
  at java.util.ServiceLoader$LazyIterator.hasNext (ServiceLoader.java:402)
  at java.util.ServiceLoader$1.hasNext (ServiceLoader.java:488)
  at kotlin.a.u.a (_Collections.kt:1132)
  at kotlin.a.u.f (_Collections.kt:1165)
  at kotlin.a.u.e (_Collections.kt:1156)
  at kotlinx.coroutines.bx.<clinit> (Dispatchers.kt:96)
  at kotlinx.coroutines.ax.b (Dispatchers.kt:53)
  at com.genimee.android.yatse.b.a.b.b.<init> (MainThreadBus.kt:14)
  at com.genimee.android.yatse.b.b.a.<clinit> (ServiceLocator.kt:24)
  at org.leetzone.android.yatsewidget.YatseApplication.<clinit> (YatseApplication.kt:390)
  at java.lang.Class.newInstance (Native method)
  at android.app.Instrumentation.newApplication (Instrumentation.java:1102)
  at android.app.Instrumentation.newApplication (Instrumentation.java:1087)
  at android.app.LoadedApk.makeApplication (LoadedApk.java:983)
  at android.app.ActivityThread.handleBindApplication (ActivityThread.java:5720)
  at android.app.ActivityThread.-wrap1 (ActivityThread.java)
  at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage (ActivityThread.java:1657)
  at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage (Handler.java:106)
  at android.os.Looper.loop (Looper.java:164)
  at android.app.ActivityThread.main (ActivityThread.java:6499)
  at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Native method)
  at com.android.internal.os.RuntimeInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run (RuntimeInit.java:442)
  at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main (ZygoteInit.java:807)

LouisCAD · 2018-12-12T08:50:17Z

There's a solution to have the Main dispatcher being automatically injected before Application.onCreate() is called. It is by using a ContentProvider (which are eagerly initialized) and taking advantage of the default manifest placeholder for applicationId so there's no clash between apps.
This needs to have the android artifact be published as an aar though. This could also be done with a separate artifact, provided there's a public API to make it possible.

You can see some example on something I done for this: https://github.com/LouisCAD/Splitties/blob/e77c909585f1b6d457af0fe18655e4794434ce50/initprovider/README.md

JakeWharton · 2018-12-12T10:33:42Z

But... why? That mechanism provides no value here except breaking multi-process use.

…

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 3:50 AM Louis CAD ***@***.*** wrote: There's a solution to have the Main dispatcher being automatically injected before Application.onCreate() is called. It is by using a ContentProvider (which are eagerly initialized) and taking advantage of the default manifest placeholder for applicationId so there's no clash between apps. This needs to have the android artifact be published as an aar though. This could also be done with a separate artifact, provided there's a public API to make it possible. You can see some example on something I done for this: https://github.com/LouisCAD/Splitties/blob/e77c909585f1b6d457af0fe18655e4794434ce50/initprovider/README.md — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#878 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEEEZirmiTG1okdxaAdG8dPy0-8tLEIks5u4MNKgaJpZM4ZJtg4> .

LouisCAD · 2018-12-12T10:37:26Z

@JakeWharton Because it requires no additional code in consumer apps. in other words, it can fix the issue for the default process in a convenient way (having nothing to do apart from updating).

The current slow path can still be used for multiprocess use (so it doesn't break anything). Such processes are usually not the processes where the main UI is run anyway, so cold start time doesn't matter as much.

JakeWharton · 2018-12-12T10:48:07Z

That still doesn't answer why... You know what else doesn't require additional code but is lazy and works in all processes? Regular class loading. The content provider hack is only for getting access to a Context. Regular static initialization is superior in every way when that isn't needed.

…

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:37 AM Louis CAD ***@***.*** wrote: @JakeWharton <https://github.com/JakeWharton> Because it requires no additional code in consumer apps. in other words, it can fix the issue for the default process in a convenient way (having nothing to do apart from updating). The current slow path can still be used for multiprocess use (so it doesn't break anything). Such processes are usually not the processes where the main UI is run anyway, so cold start time doesn't matter as much. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#878 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEEETqMbX4oA1JMgT0H3s3XxJZr15-Bks5u4NxmgaJpZM4ZJtg4> .

LouisCAD · 2018-12-12T10:53:52Z

The current design doesn't allow static initialization because Dispatchers.Main is shared with non android kotlinx.coroutines, so that's why there was a ServiceLoader in the first place, and that's why I proposing an alternative to initialize it. I think I now answered why, do you agree?

About the ContentProvider hack, it is not just for getting access to a Context but equally to run before Application.onCreate is called, hence why it can fit this use case.

Tolriq · 2018-12-12T10:57:07Z

Before talking about how, let's talk about if it should be done as @qwwdfsad seems to think it's not :(

When talking about how will come the do 'we do file access on main thread' (as possible solution proposed by @qwwdfsad do too), and does the solution needs to be global or optional? (Meaning should the faster path replace the Dispatchers.Main or be something else that won't interfere with other implementations and open a lot more solutions).

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-12T11:43:23Z

I see multiple solutions here and I'm especially interested in @JakeWharton opinion on that.

Do nothing, wait until R8 starts desugaring service loaders into static access. Very tempting for kotlinx.coroutines, resolves the issue in the long term but does not help users on older toolchains.
Use Class.forName(AndroidDispatcherFactory fqn). It is the fastest solution, but it can have a weird interaction with e.g. TestDispatcher (Introduce test module with testable main dispatcher #749) and adds a lot of maintenance burden. We should keep in mind this behaviour when implementing new features, it is testable only when kotlinx-coroutines-android artifact is present in the classpath, it does not resolve the same issue with CoroutineExceptionHandler etc. I generally don't like this solution.
Write our own ServiceLoader. According to my experiments, it speeds up load by an order of magnitude. Yes, it is still a file read from the main thread, but this effect is negligible, and it cuts down 90% of startup footprint. I don't see any problems with omitted JAR verification because we can statically reject any services that are not part of kotlinx.coroutines and/or we can make verification an opt-in mechanism for environments where JARs from untrusted sources is the real issue (and AFAIK Android is not one of these environments).
Though I am not sure whether custom ServiceLoader will always work on every Android runtime, we can always fallback to the default ServiceLoader. This solution looks the most beneficial for me and we probably can even implement it in 1.1.0 release.

Tolriq · 2018-12-12T12:16:15Z

Yes, it is still a file read from the main thread, but this effect is negligible

Let me disagree on that, was hard to reach top 3% of Play Store ANR (And can't go further due to Android 8+ bug) and any file access on main thread as small as it can be, can have impact on low end phones and block for many seconds before getting access due to some low level locks.
So yes 3) cuts a lot of the issue in nominal cases, but does not solve all cases, so as you said does it worth the maintenance cost if it's not 100% reliable and full solution?

LouisCAD · 2018-12-12T15:48:13Z

@qwwdfsad Is there a reason you don't talk about adding a public (possibly experimental) API to inject an instance of the main dispatcher?
This would allow us to instantiate it ourselves, statically, from host application code, bypassing the usual lookup that unfortunately does I/O on main thread. I think it would be a great solution until R8 "desugars" ServiceLoaders (which could be distant in time, and ANRs…).

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-12T15:53:22Z

Yes, I've explained them in #810 (comment)

LouisCAD · 2018-12-12T16:03:19Z

@qwwdfsad To me, the solution I mentioned, using the ContentProvider hack, is the only solution that can be implemented as a workaround without drawbacks or public API changes while waiting for R8 desugar support. It falls back to serviceloader on non default process, but most apps are single process as I said previously, and it's not worse than what we currently have anyway.

I can try to make a PR for this.

Tolriq · 2018-12-13T18:32:55Z

Got confirmation that 1) won't be planned before quite some time as priority is R8 stability before those things and handling the jar change directly at OS is out of possibility minSdk 29 would be 10 years away :)

For my needs, I'll go to prod with duplication of the handler and not using the Dispatchers.Main.

In what cases / at what point is the CoroutineExceptionHandler serviceLoader started?

sellmair · 2018-12-13T19:43:11Z

@qwwdfsad

Yes, I've explained them in #810 (comment)

So the argument is that allowing to change the MainDispatcher publicly and globally is bad for any core library like coroutines because this could lead to third-party libraries conflicts, right?

Would this argument also hold, if one would just allow global configuration once and further changes are disallowed by the framework (by throwing a Runtime Exception that explains that re-assignment of the main dispatcher is not possible)

Isn't this conceptionally the same as defining the service class in META-INF/services/..., in regards of conflicts?:
Anyone could define his own service there.

The tradeoff would be compile-time safety vs performance here. I personally could live with the Runtime Exception when loading two 'UI coroutine libraries'.

LouisCAD · 2018-12-13T21:49:06Z

Good point you made Sebastian, allowing once is a good option, and since we're in Kotlin 1.3, this API could be marked as exeprimental with error level, preventing unaware usages, and likely limiting it to just kotlinx.coroutines android artifact (if using the ContentProvider hack). However, instead of throwing, a Boolean could be returned, so only first set returns true, and subsequent, if any, wouldn't crash the app by default but would just be ignored.

…

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 8:43 PM Sebastian Sellmair ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, I've explained them in #810 (comment) <#810 (comment)> So the argument is that allowing to change the default Dispatchers publicly and globally is bad for any core library like coroutines because this could lead to third-party libraries conflicts, right? Would this argument also hold, if one would just allow global configuration once and further changes are disallowed by the framework (by throwing a Runtime Exception that explains that re-assignment of the main dispatcher is not possible) Isn't this conceptionally the same as defining the service class in META-INF/services/...?: Anyone could define his own service there. The tradeoff would be compile-time safety vs performance here. I personally could live with the Runtime Exception when loading two 'UI coroutine libraries'. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#878 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGpvBYrGt2CKMmJR-OjiSBnMK6ciaBEzks5u4q3bgaJpZM4ZJtg4> .

qwwdfsad · 2018-12-14T09:15:16Z

Isn't this conceptionally the same as defining the service class in META-INF/services/..., in regards of conflicts?

It is not. Service loader (and actual service interface) mechanism is purely internal. We do not allow third-parties to implement custom main dispatchers, we do not provide any backward compatibility guarantees and there are chances we even forbid implementations not known to our service loader.

Set-once is still a source of confusion, non-determinism and (as any other global mutable state provided by a library or a runtime) eventually will end up with reordering your project dependencies along with reflection hacks until you get the desired behaviour. Yes, it is better than "set anything anytime", but it still has the same flaws.

The tradeoff would be compile-time safety vs performance here.

There are no tradeoffs in your solution. The tradeoff between safety and performance is to start using Class.forName or rolling our own ServiceLoader, not opening dispatcher for global mutation.

I personally could live with the Runtime Exception when loading two 'UI coroutine libraries'.

Yes, everyone could. Until they have tens of dependencies that have 7 different versions of 4 conflicting frameworks* (yes, log4j, slf4j, jul and logback, I'm talking to you)

What you (and others) are proposing is a good solution for a local project or for a library which is used only within a single company, especially when you've already seen a similar pattern in RxJavaPlugins. But it is not good enough for a core library and eventually will harm the ecosystem.
Moreover, a global settable dispatcher is not really helpful: for tests, there is #749, if you really need settable dispatches -- you need dependency injection. You don't set global statics in order to mock a class dependency, do you?

* No jokes: https://github.com/eBay/Spark/blob/master/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/Logging.scala#L162
Another good example is implicit shutdown hook dependencies.

Tolriq · 2018-12-14T09:27:19Z

While I do understand and approve all the reasons, currently the main issue is that there's no workaround due to everything being internal / private.

Can't you just offer a way for those "small" or non multiplatform a way to access the Android Main dispatcher so that we can inject that and use that if we need to?

So not a way to inject or alter Dispatchers.Main but a way to access to X that would be the AndroidMainDispatcher that we can then use as we want? Avoid code duplication and maintenance for us too.

And can you answer this please?:
In what cases / at what point is the CoroutineExceptionHandler serviceLoader started?

I fear that's the reason of a slow down when Crashlytics initialize but can't pinpoint it :(

elizarov · 2018-12-14T13:22:36Z

@Tolriq There is a public non-experimental API for you: https://kotlin.github.io/kotlinx.coroutines/kotlinx-coroutines-android/kotlinx.coroutines.android/android.os.-handler/as-coroutine-dispatcher.html

You can statically create a coroutine dispatcher from your handler and then inject it statically throughout your code. As long as you do not explicitly use Dispatchers.Main there is no dynamic loading (it is loaded only on the actual access to this property).

Tolriq · 2018-12-14T13:42:44Z

@elizarov yes but as confirmed by @qwwdfsad it does not do exactly the same, I currently have copied the https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/blob/master/ui/kotlinx-coroutines-android/src/HandlerDispatcher.kt made Main public and inject that and it works nicely, just sad to have to copy the file to have the var public. (Usually I would use the package trick to access it, but it seems for file level variable this does not work)

For the moment I can use that workaround, but it means I may need to update my code copy when I update coroutines as result might be unpredictable if I forget.

Do you have the answer to the question about CoroutineExceptionHandler serviceloader call? Trying to find why Crashlytics now impact my startup time even if initialized on background thread and want to know if it can be linked or not.

elizarov · 2018-12-14T14:49:21Z

@Tolriq

In what cases / at what point is the CoroutineExceptionHandler serviceLoader started?

It happens the first time this handleCoroutineExceptionImpl function is invoked:

kotlinx.coroutines/core/kotlinx-coroutines-core/src/CoroutineExceptionHandlerImpl.kt

Line 21 in d6a5a39

    
           internal actual fun handleCoroutineExceptionImpl(context: CoroutineContext, exception: Throwable) {

It happens if and only if there is uncaught exception and it was not handled by your code. For Android it means that your app is about to crash.

I currently have copied the https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/blob/master/ui/kotlinx-coroutines-android/src/HandlerDispatcher.kt

The only thing you might need to copy from there is this Looper.asHandler function:
https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/blob/master/ui/kotlinx-coroutines-android/src/HandlerDispatcher.kt#L61
However, depending on your API level it could be much simpler implemented. You don't need the rest of that code, because Handler.asCoroutineDispatcher is public, or I don't understand your use-case.

Fixes #878

Tolriq · 2019-04-04T12:51:38Z

For those who will find this, the "fix" mitigate the issue, but this is still disk IO on main thread.

On Android, this is still an issue and can still cause slowdown / ANR on busy devices. (Obviously no more than without that patch, but still an issue for those who seek 100% ANR free sessions)

qwwdfsad · 2019-04-04T12:54:43Z

It is a very isolated IO for a single file that should be in a disk cache anyway.

Feel free to open a new issue if you still experience ANR after 1.2.0-alpha-2;
There are ways to speed up that loading even more, but only if there exists real evidence that the current solution is not enough

Tolriq · 2019-04-04T13:32:51Z

I do Android apps since 8 years every single disk access on main thread can and will trigger an ANR or slow down at some point, flash is slow, 50$ phones have even more bad quality flash.

I no more use the official dispatcher but my own to address that, so won't be able to give "evidence" about something well known.

I had to provide Google with a patch for their Billing library because on recent updates Google Play did a simple file access on service connection, leading to tons of ANRs.

Most users do not check their ANRs stats or vitals and it's really hard to spot on tests without forcing the device to have a busy IO queue, so you probably won't have other users reporting the issue for a while, but it will still be present.

I totally understand that Android is not the only / main target and that 0,x% of slow down and 0,0X% of ANR is not a priority. But it's important that for those who matters, they know there's still a disk IO and the cause.

LouisCAD · 2019-04-04T13:43:32Z

I just submitted a feature request for the Android Emulator to allow simulating these slow I/O performances while the storage is already busy and risks triggering an ANR because a file has been naively read from the main thread: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/129900564

Hopefully, this will at some point allow us to reproduce these situations more easily and consistently.

elizarov · 2019-04-07T10:44:46Z

What we really need is an R8 feature that would desugar ServiceLoader usage into static class initialization based on the META-INF/services files that are found when building project.

JakeWharton · 2019-04-07T11:57:49Z

Preliminary support landed last week. Haven't tested it yet, but I plan to this week.

…

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 6:44 AM Roman Elizarov ***@***.***> wrote: What we really need in a R8 feature that would desugar ServiceLoader usage into static class initialization based on the META-INF/services files that are found when building project. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#878 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEEEShh9xry-rQDov0OzzprSzuOtklPks5vecwegaJpZM4ZJtg4> .

elizarov · 2019-04-07T17:49:29Z

@JakeWharton We also need to figure out how we shall write the code so that:

if (newR8isAvailable) useRegualarServiceLoader() else useOurOwnWorkAround()

JakeWharton · 2019-04-08T13:00:57Z

Detecting you're being processed by R8 is pretty easy. Detecting what version of R8... that is less easy.

…

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 1:49 PM Roman Elizarov ***@***.***> wrote: @JakeWharton <https://github.com/JakeWharton> We also need to figure out how we shall write the code so that: if (newR8isAvailable) useRegualarServiceLoader() else useOurOwnWorkAround() — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#878 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEEEaQblPR-Jfl6aFtMvMsIak4DXHLCks5vei-qgaJpZM4ZJtg4> .

nak411 · 2019-04-10T23:57:57Z

It is a very isolated IO for a single file that should be in a disk cache anyway.

Why was this issue closed? @qwwdfsad Are there any plans to address this so developers can develop with strict mode on?
I recently discovered this and can use some of the workarounds mentioned above to get around it but doing IO on the main thread is never appropriate for android. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55584194/android-kotlin-coroutine-crashing-on-strict-mode

elizarov · 2019-04-11T07:24:04Z

@nak411 Can you, please, create a separate issue with a reproducer code from that SO question, so that we have an appropriate place to discuss and track it.

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

…s.Main on Android (#1572) Fixes #1557 Fixes #878 Fixes #1606

qwwdfsad · 2019-12-13T13:23:20Z

No I/O on the Main thread since 1.3.3, we gave up on using ServiceLoader

1) Transaction instance creation on background 2) ExchangeRate api initialization on background 3) Coroutines 1.3.5 no longer accesses disk while constructing main dispatcher (Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines#878)

SokolovaMaria added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2019

Custom ServiceLoader without jar checksum verification

d8aa178

Fixes #878

colintheshots mentioned this issue Mar 22, 2019

Cold start has Dispatchers.Main 1/5th second delay mozilla-mobile/fenix#1139

Closed

qwwdfsad pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2019

Custom ServiceLoader without jar checksum verification

4bd8e6e

Fixes #878

qwwdfsad closed this as completed in 15b6345 Apr 4, 2019

This was referenced Apr 7, 2019

Meta artifact containing all the splits LouisCAD/Splitties#179

Closed

New "fast" service loader makes the app crash when used with Apply Changes from Android Studio #1072

Closed

wojtek-kalicinski mentioned this issue May 30, 2019

FastServiceLoader performs I/O on calling thread and prevents R8 optimization #1231

Closed

qwwdfsad mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2019

Autogenerate source files with current version and check it during Main dispatcher initialization #1322

Closed

colinrtwhite mentioned this issue Sep 19, 2019

Setup a benchmark with Glide, Fresco, Picasso coil-kt/coil#71

Closed

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 25, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

eea2dda

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 25, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

2127ba8

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

qwwdfsad mentioned this issue Sep 25, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatchers.Main on Android #1572

Merged

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

98dbf26

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

7a625e8

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

2e4f54b

…s.Main on Android Fixes #1557 Fixes #878

qwwdfsad added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2019

User Class.forName instead of ServiceLoader to instantiate Dispatcher…

e60ec8e

…s.Main on Android (#1572) Fixes #1557 Fixes #878 Fixes #1606

whataa mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2025

How can I make "R8's optimization of ServiceLoader" take effect? #4324

Closed

Slow android Dispatchers.Main init #878

Slow android Dispatchers.Main init #878

Comments

Tolriq commented Dec 8, 2018

JakeWharton commented Dec 8, 2018

elizarov commented Dec 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Tolriq commented Dec 8, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 8, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 8, 2018

Tolriq commented Dec 9, 2018

elizarov commented Dec 9, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 10, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 10, 2018 • edited Loading

Tolriq commented Dec 10, 2018

Tolriq commented Dec 12, 2018

LouisCAD commented Dec 12, 2018

JakeWharton commented Dec 12, 2018 via email

LouisCAD commented Dec 12, 2018

JakeWharton commented Dec 12, 2018 via email

LouisCAD commented Dec 12, 2018

Tolriq commented Dec 12, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 12, 2018 • edited Loading

Tolriq commented Dec 12, 2018

LouisCAD commented Dec 12, 2018

qwwdfsad commented Dec 12, 2018

LouisCAD commented Dec 12, 2018

Tolriq commented Dec 13, 2018

sellmair commented Dec 13, 2018 • edited Loading

LouisCAD commented Dec 13, 2018 via email

qwwdfsad commented Dec 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Tolriq commented Dec 14, 2018

elizarov commented Dec 14, 2018

Tolriq commented Dec 14, 2018

elizarov commented Dec 14, 2018

Tolriq commented Apr 4, 2019

qwwdfsad commented Apr 4, 2019

Tolriq commented Apr 4, 2019

LouisCAD commented Apr 4, 2019

elizarov commented Apr 7, 2019 • edited Loading

JakeWharton commented Apr 7, 2019 via email

elizarov commented Apr 7, 2019

JakeWharton commented Apr 8, 2019 via email

nak411 commented Apr 10, 2019

elizarov commented Apr 11, 2019

qwwdfsad commented Dec 13, 2019

elizarov commented Dec 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

qwwdfsad commented Dec 10, 2018 •

edited

Loading

qwwdfsad commented Dec 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

sellmair commented Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

qwwdfsad commented Dec 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

elizarov commented Apr 7, 2019 •

edited

Loading