Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

Pool.get is not first-come-first-served: the releasing fiber re-acquires before fibers already waiting

Cerrado
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#10,017 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Ya se ha fusionado un pull request relacionado.

  • #10026 de @tim-smart — fusionado

Evaluación

Dificultad
4/5
Tiempo estimado
3-5 días
Aptitud para principiantes
48/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bien especificado
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
typescript
Área
backend, testing

Línea de trabajo

Start with packages/effect/src/Pool.ts, especially get, waitForItem, addAvailableFront, and wakeWaiters; trace how a released item is made available and how queued fibers are resumed. The reproduction in the issue provides the failing FIFO expectation; run it against the pool implementation and check that waiting requests are admitted in arrival order without repeated overtaking. The report also notes similar behavior in src/Semaphore.ts, so assess whether the fix needs to cover both.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

What version of Effect is running?

effect 4.0.6 (also 4.0.5; src/Pool.ts is identical in both). The same behaviour reaches @effect/sql-pg, whose pool is built on Pool.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

  1. Create an empty folder with this package.json:

    {
  "name": "effect-pool-fairness-repro",
  "private": true,
  "type": "module",
  "devDependencies": {
    "effect": "4.0.6",
    "@effect/vitest": "4.0.6",
    "vitest": "5.0.5"
  }
}

  2. Add pool.test.ts:

    import { expect, it } from "@effect/vitest"
import { Effect, Fiber, Pool } from "effect"
import { TestClock } from "effect/testing"

it.effect("a later request is admitted before the ones already waiting", () =>
  Effect.gen(function*() {
    const pool = yield* Pool.make({ acquire: Effect.succeed("connection"), size: 1 })
    let asked = 0
    const admitted: Array<number> = []
    const use = Effect.scoped(Effect.gen(function*() {
      const ticket = asked++          // ticket = arrival order of the request
      yield* Pool.get(pool)
      admitted.push(ticket)           // record the order in which requests get the item
      yield* Effect.sleep("10 millis")
    }))
    // One fiber uses the item three times in a row (asking at 0, 10 and 20 ms);
    // three other fibers start asking at 1, 2 and 3 ms.
    const chained = yield* Effect.forkChild(Effect.repeat(use, { times: 2 }))
    const others = yield* Effect.forEach([1, 2, 3], (at) => Effect.forkChild(Effect.delay(use, `${at} millis`)))
    yield* TestClock.adjust("100 millis")
    yield* Fiber.join(chained)
    yield* Fiber.joinAll(others)
    expect(admitted).toEqual([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
  }).pipe(Effect.scoped))

  3. Run npm install and npx vitest run pool.test.ts (Bun works the same).

What is the expected behavior?

Requests are admitted in arrival order: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Requests 1, 2 and 3 started waiting at 1-3 ms, before the chained fiber asked again at 10 and 20 ms (tickets 4 and 5).

What do you see instead?
AssertionError: expected [ 0, 4, 5, 3, 1, 2 ] to deeply equal [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

It fails on every run. The fiber that releases the item gets it straight back (0, 4, 5), and the fibers that were already waiting are admitted last, and not in their own arrival order either (3, then 1, then 2).

Additional information

Where it comes from, in packages/effect/src/Pool.ts at 4.0.6:

  • get (L462-473) leases state.availableHead whenever an item is available, without checking whether state.waiters is empty.
  • On release, the item goes back to the front (addAvailableFront, L709), and wakeWaiters (L710, L737-751) wakes waiters in a task scheduled for later (currentDispatcher.scheduleTask(..., 0)).
  • Between the release and that task, any fiber that calls get synchronously takes the item. Usually that is the fiber that just released it and is running its next statement.
  • A woken waiter that loses that race goes back through waitForItem (L721-735), which re-adds it at the end of the waiters set. That explains the reversed order among the waiters.

Semaphore has the same shape: take succeeds when free >= n regardless of waiters (src/Semaphore.ts L223), and releaseUnsafe (L267) wakes observers that re-check later. So putting a semaphore in front of the pool does not make it fair.

Impact we measured (@effect/sql-pg pool of 4 connections, about 50 concurrent fibers each running a few consecutive statements):

  • The median acquisition waits 0 ms, because the releasing fiber keeps the connection.
  • p99 is 1.7 s and the worst case 4.2 s.
  • Among acquisitions that waited more than 1 s, a median of 146 later acquisitions were admitted first.

In a micro-benchmark of that pattern (50 fibers × 5 calls, 4 connections), the worst wait per call was about 1.2 s, with up to about 900 overtakes per acquisition. With a first-come gate in front of the pool it drops to about 0.27 s, with at most 1 overtake.

Possible direction: hand a released item (or permit) directly to the oldest waiter, instead of putting it back and waking waiters later, and let get/take use an available item only when nobody is waiting. Keeping waiters in FIFO order, and not re-queueing a woken waiter at the back, would also bound the wait. If the current behaviour is intentional for throughput (the releasing fiber keeps a warm connection), an opt-in fairness: "fifo" option on Pool.make and the SQL pools would cover latency-sensitive callers.

Lenguaje dominante
TypeScript
Estrellas
16.7k
Forks
808
Merge medio
11 h 11 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
840

Preparar el entorno

Este proyecto no incluye contenedor de desarrollo, Dockerfile ni guía de contribución, así que la configuración corre por tu cuenta: empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de Effect-TS/effect

Todos los issues de Effect-TS/effect

Issues similares

Más issues de TypeScript

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.