Fixing Go Routine Leaks from Unbuffered Network I/O Channels

In this blog we deep dive into the common issue of Go routine leaks when using unbuffered channels for network I/O, understand why it happens, and explore practical strategies to prevent routine leaks at scale. We cover the core problem, its impacts, and various solutions including buffered channels, limiting connections, aborting slow handle routines, and more.

GraphQL has a role beyond API Query Language- being the backbone of application Integration
background Coditation

Fixing Go Routine Leaks from Unbuffered Network I/O Channels

Go routines and channels are powerful constructs that enable easy concurrent and parallel programming in Go. However, when using unbuffered channels for network I/O, it's easy to unintentionally leak Go routines. In this comprehensive post, we'll do a deep dive on why this happens and some best practices for preventing routine leaks even at scale.

The Core Issue

First, let's understand the crux of the problem. Imagine we have an unbuffered channel like:

messages := make(chan string)

And we start a Go routine to listen for incoming connections and write messages to the channel:

go func() {
  listener, _ := net.Listen("tcp", ":8080")
  for {
    conn, _ := listener.Accept()
    go handleConn(conn, messages) 

func handleConn(conn net.Conn, messages chan<- string) {

  buffer := make([]byte, 512)
  for {
    n, _ := conn.Read(buffer)
    messages <- string(buffer[:n]) 

This simple design works fine at first, but hides an insidious issue - the handleConn routine will block on messages <- string(buffer[:n]) if there are no receivers draining the channel!
So for every open connection, we risk leaking a blocked routine. After even a few thousand connections, this can cause thousands of stuck routines!

Why Routine Leaks Happen

To understand why this occurs, we need to analyze the flow deeply:

  1. An incoming request comes in for a new TCP connection
  2. Our listener accepts the socket
  3. It fires off a handleConn Go routine to manage that TCP socket
  4. The handleConn routine reads from the socket...
  5. And tries to write each message to the unbuffered messages channel

Now here is the key problem - step 5 will block if nothing is reading from the other end of the channel! So handleConn will just get stuck whenever the write rate exceeds the read rate.
These writer routines (the handleConn ones) are now leaked - stuck trying to send messages that no receiver has gotten around to receiving yet. This won't be obvious at first, but as more connections flood in, more routines accumulate.
After some time, thousands of handles might be stuck even though their connection is closed!

Deeper Impact

This not only wastes resources by accumulating inactive routines, but has deeper impacts:

  1. Can hit runtime limits on thread count, keeping SO many routines blocked.
  2. Stalls the entire program - leaks mean no progress if all routines get trapped.
  3. Cripples performance if the scheduler is overwhelmed.
  4. Risks eventual deadlock if channel reads/writes go unbalanced.

So it's critical we address this early before routine leaks crash our programs!

Common Refactors Don't Help

You may think simple refactors resolve this. Unfortunately, many typical approaches fail:
Tight Loops

Some try tight loops on receivers:

func receiver() {
  for {
     msg := <- messages

But this only helps if receivers drain messages at >= send rate. One slow receiver still enables leaks!
Buffered Channels

Some use buffered channels:

messages := make(chan string, 100)

But again this only delays issues. Slow receivers will still leak handles once the buffer fills up!
Ignore It

And some try ignoring it altogether! But then issues compound over days/months till one day...crash! We need robust systems.
So clearly we need actual solutions. Let's discuss fixes.


Alright, enough talk - let's get to the good stuff! There are many strategies to avoid routine leak accumulation.
Buffered Channels

Our first proper solution is buffered channels. Earlier we discussed why a small buffer only delays problems. But a large enough buffer can help:

messages := make(chan string, 1000000)

Now writers can queue 1 million messages without blocking before a reader receives them! Enough to cover brief mismatches of send/receive rates.
Of course this adds tons of memory overhead if the buffer fully utilizes. So its effectiveness depends on the scenarios.
Limit Max Connections

Since leaks come from open connections, we can limit the max number allowed at once:

var maxConns = 1000
var activeConns = 0

func handleConn(conn) {

  if activeConns > maxConns {

  // .. handle conn ..

This bounds resource usage. But it means abandoning connections over the threshold - not ideal.
Abort Slow Handle Routines

Instead of closing connections, we can abort routines that get "stuck":

func handleConn(conn) {

  timer := time.AfterFunc(5*time.Second, func() {

  messages <- buffer[:n]

Here we start a timer whenever we perform a blocking write. If it triggers, we Goexit the routine. This frees up leaked handles, at the cost of dropping their messages.
We can combine this with a buffer to only abort really slow routines.
Stop Listening If Overloaded

We can outright stop accepting connections when things get overloaded:

var activeConns = 0

func listener() {
   listener, _ := net.Listen(...)
   for {
     if activeConns > 1000 {
       time.Sleep(10 * time.Second)  
       listener, _ = net.Listen(...)
     // accept conn

This throttles things when the system is swamped. Avoiding overload may be preferable to dealing with the aftermath!
Use Channel Directionality

Channels can be marked send/receive-only:

var messages = make(chan<- string)

func handleConn(conn) {
  messages <- buffer 

func receiver() {
  for msg := range messages {

Since messages can only be sent-to, stalled sends clearly indicate lack of receives. Plus we can't accidentally try to receive-from-only.
Drawbacks are loss of flexibility if requirements change.
Single Sender/Receiver

Similarly, we can funnel all sends/receives through a single routine:

var messages = make(chan string) 

func receiver() {
   for msg := range messages {

func handler() {
  sender(messages, buffer)  

func sender(msgs chan<- string, buffer) {
   msgs <- buffer

This avoids concurrent conflicting sends. But it creates an artifical bottleneck, risking slow throughput.

Evaluating Options

With so many options, which is best? There is no single solution - it depends on your context.
Buffered channels work well for fairly balanced loads. Connection limiting helps bound resource usage. Slow job abortion requires careful tuning not to be overzealous.
Channel changes are best made early when possible. Other approaches like rate limiting are great operational safeguards.
In the end, having layered redundant strategies makes systems most resilient!

Wrapping Up

Routine leaks are a common footgun when first working with unbuffered channels & network I/O.
But with an understanding of how leaks occur, and techniques like buffers, aborting stalled jobs, and channel directionality - we can minimize routine accumulation even at scale.
Dynamic systems constantly fluctuate. The key is designing components resilient enough to safely handle extremes!
I hope you've enjoyed this deep dive into preventing Go routine leaks. Feel free to reach us on for any other questions!

Want to receive update about our upcoming podcast?

Thanks for joining our newsletter.
Oops! Something went wrong.