Hacktoberfest 2026:维护者为十月标记出来的 issue,仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

All the runScheduledAction complexity seems to be redundant

未关闭
#425 3 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
25/100
Issue 类型
重构
描述清晰度
需要澄清
活跃度
停滞
技术栈
haskell

调研方向

先比较所引用的提交 3855e91 和 876a3dc,然后跟踪 runScheduledAction 和 sendOn,以了解 MVar 周围的顺序保证。确定调度复杂性是否是冗余的,并在更改之前记录一个具体且可测试的范围。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

network-transport-tcp

From the https://github.com/haskell-distributed/network-transport-tcp/commit/3855e91dcad7381f6626fc47adb8f4c9c60d5279:

Simply doing

thingToSend <- modifyMVar (....)
send thingToSend

is not good enough, because now if we have to threads doing the above the sends
may be done in the wrong order.

Before https://github.com/haskell-distributed/network-transport-tcp/commit/876a3dc94e516c9ec60ea8b0a65ea3f13b8c1f27 it was true. But after sendOn was protected with MVar it seems that it became redundant, because, as @simonmar states in his book:

if a thread T is blocked in takeMVar and there are regular putMVar operations on the same MVar, it is guaranteed that at some point thread T’s takeMVar will return. In GHC, this guarantee is implemented by keeping blocked threads in a FIFO queue attached to the MVar...

In other words, the first thread called sendOn and blocked on MVar will be served first when the MVar will be available (if I understood correctly the book). So it seems that "simply doing" approach mentioned in the beginning will just do. No?

CC @edsko

主要语言
Haskell
星标
753
派生
101
平均合并
1 天 3 小时
30 天内合并 PR
4

环境准备

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

haskell-distributed/distributed-process 的其他 Issue

查看 haskell-distributed/distributed-process 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Haskell Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。