WARNING: THIS SITE IS A MIRROR OF GITHUB.COM / IT CANNOT LOGIN OR REGISTER ACCOUNTS / THE CONTENTS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS / THIS SITE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DISPLAYED CONTENT OR LINKS / IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING MAY NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE, CONTACT ADMIN AT ilovescratch@foxmail.com
Skip to content

Conversation

@arturobernalg
Copy link
Member

@arturobernalg arturobernalg commented Dec 27, 2025

This change adds an optional hard cap on the number of pending request execution commands queued per HTTP/2 connection. When the per-connection limit is reached, new submissions fail fast with RejectedExecutionException and the exchange handler releases its resources immediately. The cap is configured via H2MultiplexingRequesterBootstrap and passed into H2MultiplexingRequester at construction time to keep requester configuration immutable and avoid API incompatibilities.

@arturobernalg arturobernalg requested a review from ok2c December 27, 2025 18:14
@ok2c
Copy link
Member

ok2c commented Dec 28, 2025

@arturobernalg I do not like this approach. There is already a command queue built into the IOSession. We should leverage that queue instead of creating another layer of complexity. What we need is to extend IOSession interface to expose information about already pending commands and optionally reject commands if the queue is over a particular limit.

@arturobernalg arturobernalg force-pushed the max-requests-per-connection branch from de6f206 to b777f5d Compare December 29, 2025 17:58
@arturobernalg
Copy link
Member Author

arturobernalg commented Dec 29, 2025

@arturobernalg I do not like this approach. There is already a command queue built into the IOSession. We should leverage that queue instead of creating another layer of complexity. What we need is to extend IOSession interface to expose information about already pending commands and optionally reject commands if the queue is over a particular limit.

@ok2c . Sorry about the churn — I’m still getting up to speed on this part of the reactor stack and my previous commit took a wrong turn. I dropped the extra wrapper and enforce the cap via the existing IOSession command queue. I extended IOSession with a bounded enqueue + pending count and delegated through InternalDataChannel and SSLIOSession so the limit is not bypassed by decorators.

* @since 5.5
*/
default int getPendingCommandCount() {
return 0;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg I think the method by default return -1 as not known

* @return {@code true} if the command was enqueued, {@code false} otherwise.
* @since 5.5
*/
default boolean enqueue(final Command command, final Command.Priority priority, final int maxPendingCommands) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg I would not do that on the i/o session level. Different protocol handlers may have different restrictions. 10 concurrent requests may be perfectly OK for HTTP/2 and too much for HTTP/1.1. Please move this logic to individual protocol handlers.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ok2c I just drop the IOSession-level enqueue/queue-limit API and keep the cap/reject logic strictly in the HTTP/2 requester/handler layer as requested.

@arturobernalg arturobernalg force-pushed the max-requests-per-connection branch from 3cbecbe to 639e632 Compare December 30, 2025 18:53
@arturobernalg arturobernalg requested a review from ok2c December 30, 2025 18:54

@Override
public void releaseResources() {
final int max = maxRequestsPerConnection;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg Why, why all this complexity? You are not going to impress no young ladies with it. You almost had it right last time. Restore the command count method from the previous revision and fail the request if the total number of pending commands is over the max limit. That should be all. The tricky bit is to come up with a reasonable config mechanism for the max pending command limit.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg Why, why all this complexity? You are not going to impress no young ladies with it. You almost had it right last time. Restore the command count method from the previous revision and fail the request if the total number of pending commands is over the max limit. That should be all. The tricky bit is to come up with a reasonable config mechanism for the max pending command limit.
Hi @ok2c , I’ve ditched the extra plumbing and went back to the simple approach: restored the command-count method and now H2MultiplexingRequester just fails fast when pending commands exceed the configured max.

Restore per-session command count and use it in H2MultiplexingRequester to
fail fast when the per-connection command queue exceeds the configured limit.
@arturobernalg arturobernalg force-pushed the max-requests-per-connection branch from 9c8911c to e6cb499 Compare January 1, 2026 13:20
@arturobernalg arturobernalg requested a review from ok2c January 1, 2026 13:24
/**
* Cancellable that can be wired to the stream control once it becomes available.
*/
private static final class CancellableExecution implements Cancellable, CancellableDependency {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg I am not sure why this is necessary. The original CancellableExecution is now unused. Is this an optimization of some sort?

Copy link
Member

@ok2c ok2c left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@arturobernalg Conceptually everything looks good to me. However as far as I can see you are also mixing in some code optimization into the same change-set.

Could you please do this?

  1. Spin the optimization code into a separate pull request. It should get merged in first.
  2. Re-base this pull request off it
  3. Provide the same logic to HttpAsyncRequester for consistency.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants