Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

Research lightweight handling of panicking wakers

クローズ
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#342 コメント 3 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
機能追加
明瞭さ
説明が足りない
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
rust
領域
backend

調査の方向性

Start by reading issues #341 and #335 to understand the current non-panicking contract and the complexity that was removed. Compare the linked Tokio, thingbuf, event-listener, embassy-sync, and asupersync approaches, then produce a small prototype with targeted validation. Done means an evidence-backed proposal or documented conclusion that preserves ownership and unwind safety without adding dependencies or complicating the normal path.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

help wanted

Motivation

Follow-up to #341, with the earlier discussion in #335. Asyncband currently expects executor waker operations to be non-panicking and does not promise recovery from panicking waker operations. Removing the previous recovery machinery made notification and permit-distribution paths substantially easier to follow.

A wake callback can still panic after a batch of waiters has been detached, interrupting the remaining notifications. Investigate whether we can attempt those remaining wakes with a small, clear implementation, without restoring the complexity removed in #341.

Research questions

  • Which real-world executor or custom-waker scenarios benefit from recovery, and what behavior should callers observe after catching the panic?
  • Can an ownership or RAII-based approach provide useful recovery? Distinguish cleaning up remaining wakers from actually waking them, and account for a later wake also panicking or cleanup running during an existing unwind.
  • What state must be committed before invoking callbacks, especially for permit distribution and cancellation handoff?
  • Where should the recovery boundary be? Focus on wake and wake_by_ref; assess clone and drop where they affect the proposed approach, rather than assuming that every waker operation needs a general recovery framework.
  • What are the costs in code complexity, allocation, and the normal notification path?

Existing examples

The initial source review found several different policies rather than one ecosystem-wide convention:

  • Tokio 1.53.1 WakeList uses a drop guard to destroy remaining wakers after a wake panic; it does not attempt the remaining wakes. Its internal AtomicWaker separately restores registration state after a clone panic.
  • thingbuf 0.1.6 WaitCell follows Tokio's registration-recovery strategy, while its batch queue notifications directly invoke callbacks.
  • event-listener 5.4.2 directly invokes wake callbacks in its notification loop, without per-callback panic isolation. async-lock, async-channel, and async-broadcast build on this notification mechanism.
  • embassy-sync 0.8.0 MultiWakerRegistration clears the stored length before waking to preserve memory safety during unwinding; a panic stops the loop and can leak the remaining wakers.
  • asupersync 0.5.0 Notify catches each wake panic, retains the first payload, attempts the remaining wakes, and then resumes the first panic. This is a concrete comparison point for the stronger behavior and its implementation cost.

Desired outcome

An evidence-backed proposal with a small prototype and targeted validation, or a documented conclusion explaining why the available approaches do not justify their complexity. Keep callbacks and replaced or cancelled waker destruction outside primitive locks, preserve basic ownership and unwind safety, introduce no new dependencies, and keep the normal path simple.

A successful approach is intended to be a non-breaking robustness improvement under the contract established by #341. Broader guarantees for arbitrary panicking waker operations should be justified separately.

主要言語
Rust
スター
274
フォーク
42
平均マージ
20時間 18分
マージ済み PR（30日）
55

環境構築

このプロジェクトには開発コンテナ、Dockerfile、コントリビューションガイドがありません。まず README を読み、一般的な手順ははじめてのコントリビューションガイドを参照してください。

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

apache/asyncband のほかの issue

apache/asyncband の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Rust の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。