worker: fix interaction of terminate() with messaging port #37319
Conversation
This file contains 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
When a Worker is terminated, its own handle and the public `MessagePort` are `.ref()`’ed, so that all relevant events, including the `'exit'` events, end up being received. However, this is problematic if messages end up being queued from the Worker between the beginning of the `.terminate()` call and its completion, and there are no `'message'` event handlers present at that time. In that situation, currently the messages would not end up being processed, and since the MessagePort is still `.ref()`’ed, it would keep the event loop alive indefinitely. To fix this: - Make sure that all messages end up being received by `drainMessagePort()`, including cases in which the port had been stopped (i.e. there are no `'message'` listeners) and cases in which we exceed the limit for messages being processed in one batch. - Unref the Worker’s internal ports manually after the Worker has exited. Either of these solutions should be solving this on its own, but I think it makes sense to make sure that both of them happen during cleanup.
nodejs-github-bot
added
c++
benjamingr
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2021
cjihrig
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2021
jasnell
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2021
Trott
approved these changes
Feb 19, 2021
|
Landed in 5968c54 |
addaleax
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2021
When a Worker is terminated, its own handle and the public `MessagePort` are `.ref()`’ed, so that all relevant events, including the `'exit'` events, end up being received. However, this is problematic if messages end up being queued from the Worker between the beginning of the `.terminate()` call and its completion, and there are no `'message'` event handlers present at that time. In that situation, currently the messages would not end up being processed, and since the MessagePort is still `.ref()`’ed, it would keep the event loop alive indefinitely. To fix this: - Make sure that all messages end up being received by `drainMessagePort()`, including cases in which the port had been stopped (i.e. there are no `'message'` listeners) and cases in which we exceed the limit for messages being processed in one batch. - Unref the Worker’s internal ports manually after the Worker has exited. Either of these solutions should be solving this on its own, but I think it makes sense to make sure that both of them happen during cleanup. PR-URL: #37319 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
targos
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2021
When a Worker is terminated, its own handle and the public `MessagePort` are `.ref()`’ed, so that all relevant events, including the `'exit'` events, end up being received. However, this is problematic if messages end up being queued from the Worker between the beginning of the `.terminate()` call and its completion, and there are no `'message'` event handlers present at that time. In that situation, currently the messages would not end up being processed, and since the MessagePort is still `.ref()`’ed, it would keep the event loop alive indefinitely. To fix this: - Make sure that all messages end up being received by `drainMessagePort()`, including cases in which the port had been stopped (i.e. there are no `'message'` listeners) and cases in which we exceed the limit for messages being processed in one batch. - Unref the Worker’s internal ports manually after the Worker has exited. Either of these solutions should be solving this on its own, but I think it makes sense to make sure that both of them happen during cleanup. PR-URL: #37319 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
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.
When a Worker is terminated, its own handle and the public
MessagePortare.ref()’ed, so that all relevant events,including the
'exit'events, end up being received.However, this is problematic if messages end up being queued
from the Worker between the beginning of the
.terminate()calland its completion, and there are no
'message'event handlerspresent at that time. In that situation, currently the messages
would not end up being processed, and since the MessagePort
is still
.ref()’ed, it would keep the event loop aliveindefinitely.
To fix this:
drainMessagePort(), including cases in which the port hadbeen stopped (i.e. there are no
'message'listeners) andcases in which we exceed the limit for messages being processed
in one batch.
has exited.
Either of these solutions should be solving this on its own,
but I think it makes sense to make sure that both of them
happen during cleanup.
@nodejs/workers