Thanks Michael.
My opinion is
1. It should be mentioned explicitly in the doc that a blocking finalizer
will cause future objects with finalizers to leak. Probably next to the "A
single goroutine runs all finalizers for a program..." section.
2. Go should provide a way to know about it when it happens. For example,
we could have runtime.LastFinalizer() which returns {StartTime, Trace}.
Users may choose to monitor it to detect the issue and its source.
3. I am not sure if it is intentional, but the goroutine dump indicates
finq only if debug=1 is used.
4. Maybe we can add pprof/sys to indicate such metrics/potential issues?
5. Regarding the single routine vs multi-routine. Yes, this is clear. Did
you consider having a finalizer routine per package? I think this is a
significant deficit since it break isolation. Either way, I find providing
1 and 2 sufficient.
Do you want me to start a formal discussion in golang/go or will you take
it from here?
Thanks again.
On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 15:24:46 UTC+2 Michael Knyszek wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this is pretty much how such features tend to be designed
> to keep overheads low.
>
> Er, sorry, this is actually a little more nuanced. Creating a new
> goroutine for each finalizer/cleanup could cause a different problem of
> generating too many goroutines (so, too much memory being used) in addition
> to the cost of creating and scheduling new goroutines, and once that
> behavior is relied on it's very difficult to change. For example,
> context.AfterFunc has this behavior, and that's an example where the new
> goroutine overhead has been reported to us as causing performance issues as
> well. I suspect there just isn't going to be one right answer for all
> cases. Cleanups and finalizers are relatively low level, so the scales
> tilted more toward having users do their own scheduling, at the risk of the
> blocking issues you ran into. (As well as the fact that cleanups and
> finalizers have more loose guarantees in general.)
>
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 9:05:30 AM UTC-4 Michael Knyszek wrote:
>
>> Sorry you ran into this issue.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is pretty much how such features tend to be designed
>> to keep overheads low. You make a good point that we should have more
>> diagnostics to detect when this happens. We can add a `runtime/metrics`
>> metric, or perhaps add extend the capabilities of an experimental debug
>> mode I'm working on for cleanups and finalizers (https://go.dev/cl/634599).
>> At the very least, I'll make note of this in https://go.dev/doc/gc-guide.
>>
>> Note also that even though `runtime.AddCleanup` is documented as running
>> cleanups concurrently,
>> 1. In Go 1.24 we don't actually do that, so it won't help you to switch
>> in the short term. I have a patch for Go 1.25 to do that properly. (
>> https://go.dev/cl/650697)
>> 2. Even once we can run cleanups concurrently, it's still hazardous to
>> spend a long time in a cleanup. The Go 1.25 implementation will not run
>> each cleanup in its own goroutine, as that is just too expensive and very
>> hard to change. You can still exhaust the finite number of goroutines used
>> to run cleanups.
>>
>> Java Cleaners have a similar limitation in that each Cleaner runs all its
>> actions on a single thread. ("The execution of the cleaning action is
>> performed by a thread associated with the cleaner. [...] The thread runs
>> until all registered cleaning actions have completed and the cleaner itself
>> is reclaimed by the garbage collector.", from
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/ref/Cleaner.html)
>> There is a difference here in that you can create as many cleaners as you
>> want, AFAICT.
>>
>> I'll note that we might be able to do something more complicated in the
>> future in which we "detach" a cleanup goroutine if we detect that it blocks
>> or runs too long at runtime. But just to set expectations, I don't think
>> there's a high likelihood that we'll do something like this any time soon.
>> On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 8:49:59 AM UTC-4 Gavra wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, even if it was only a few ms, they should have run it in a
>>> goroutine.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 14:17:56 UTC+2 Robert Engels wrote:
>>>
>>>> The docs:
>>>>
>>>> “ A single goroutine runs all finalizers for a program, sequentially.
>>>> If a finalizer must run for a long time, it should do so by starting a new
>>>> goroutine.”
>>>>
>>>> So the code did not follow the api docs - as apparently the close() is
>>>> indefinite.
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2025, at 6:46 AM, Gavra <gav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I intend to open a bug for them.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that one should not relay on the execution of finalizers. But,
>>>> the fact that the runtime just piles them up because one package did wrong
>>>> is outrageous.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I am not sure why but I can see the mfinal routine only
>>>> when running my program from Goland; When I build it manually the routine
>>>> is invisible using pprof.
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 13:38:04 UTC+2 Robert Engels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In fact the code you reference - the close() - does things the Go docs
>>>>> warn specifically not to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may be better off using runtime.AddCleanup()
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2025, at 6:32 AM, Robert Engels <ren...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In principle, I would argue that there is a correctness problem. You
>>>>> should not rely on finalizers ever - they are catches and often optional
>>>>> -
>>>>> so the design relying on finalizers to run is what is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the real world they can make solving certain problems much easier -
>>>>> especially with shared resources. I know Java has deprecated them in lieu
>>>>> of other technologies like Cleaners.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2025, at 6:19 AM, Gavra <gav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/hirochachacha/go-smb2/blob/c8e61c7a5fa7bcd1143359f071f9425a9f4dda3f/client.go#L1063
>>>>> We are looking for why exactly it blocked (probably incorrect ctx) but
>>>>> I think this close should run in a goroutine.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 12:29:34 UTC+2 Brian Candler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 09:55:58 UTC Gavra wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This finalizer blocks the runtime's finalizer goroutine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of interest, what made it block? Was the finalizer doing some
>>>>>> channel communication, for example?
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5c7c034d-3bc6-4fe5-82bb-a318310bd82fn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5c7c034d-3bc6-4fe5-82bb-a318310bd82fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>
>>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/6AABBB52-5BC6-4874-900B-C423E37952C4%40ix.netcom.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/6AABBB52-5BC6-4874-900B-C423E37952C4%40ix.netcom.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/75da8ea2-c099-483c-969a-ab99a91da2a4n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/75da8ea2-c099-483c-969a-ab99a91da2a4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/e0e8f836-d614-46df-877a-2bca3d540c0en%40googlegroups.com.
