Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Node.js - Maximum call stack size exceeded

When I run my code, Node.js throws a "RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded" exception caused by too many recursive calls. I tried to increase Node.js stack size by sudo node --stack-size=16000 app, but Node.js crashes without any error message. When I run this again without sudo, then Node.js prints 'Segmentation fault: 11'. Is there a possibility to solve this without removing my recursive calls?

like image 822
user1518183 Avatar asked Jan 05 '14 17:01

user1518183


People also ask

How do I fix maximum call stack size exceeded?

The call stack is limited in size, and when it's exceeded, the RangeError is thrown. This can happen when a deeply nested function is called, or when a lot of new variables are created. The most common way to fix this error is to reduce the number of function calls, or to limit the number of variables that are created.

How do I fix maximum call stack size exceeded NPM?

The "RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded" error occurs when a function is called so many times that the invocations exceed the call stack limit. To solve the error, specify a base case that has to be met to exit the recursion.

What does it mean when maximum call stack size exceeded?

The JavaScript exception "too much recursion" or "Maximum call stack size exceeded" occurs when there are too many function calls, or a function is missing a base case.

What is Max call stack?

It means that somewhere in your code, you are calling a function which in turn calls another function and so forth, until you hit the call stack limit. This is almost always because of a recursive function with a base case that isn't being met.


5 Answers

You should wrap your recursive function call into a

  • setTimeout,
  • setImmediate or
  • process.nextTick

function to give node.js the chance to clear the stack. If you don't do that and there are many loops without any real async function call or if you do not wait for the callback, your RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded will be inevitable.

There are many articles concerning "Potential Async Loop". Here is one.

Now some more example code:

// ANTI-PATTERN
// THIS WILL CRASH

var condition = false, // potential means "maybe never"
    max = 1000000;

function potAsyncLoop( i, resume ) {
    if( i < max ) {
        if( condition ) { 
            someAsyncFunc( function( err, result ) { 
                potAsyncLoop( i+1, callback );
            });
        } else {
            // this will crash after some rounds with
            // "stack exceed", because control is never given back
            // to the browser 
            // -> no GC and browser "dead" ... "VERY BAD"
            potAsyncLoop( i+1, resume ); 
        }
    } else {
        resume();
    }
}
potAsyncLoop( 0, function() {
    // code after the loop
    ...
});

This is right:

var condition = false, // potential means "maybe never"
    max = 1000000;

function potAsyncLoop( i, resume ) {
    if( i < max ) {
        if( condition ) { 
            someAsyncFunc( function( err, result ) { 
                potAsyncLoop( i+1, callback );
            });
        } else {
            // Now the browser gets the chance to clear the stack
            // after every round by getting the control back.
            // Afterwards the loop continues
            setTimeout( function() {
                potAsyncLoop( i+1, resume ); 
            }, 0 );
        }
    } else {
        resume();
    }
}
potAsyncLoop( 0, function() {
    // code after the loop
    ...
});

Now your loop may become too slow, because we loose a little time (one browser roundtrip) per round. But you do not have to call setTimeout in every round. Normally it is o.k. to do it every 1000th time. But this may differ depending on your stack size:

var condition = false, // potential means "maybe never"
    max = 1000000;

function potAsyncLoop( i, resume ) {
    if( i < max ) {
        if( condition ) { 
            someAsyncFunc( function( err, result ) { 
                potAsyncLoop( i+1, callback );
            });
        } else {
            if( i % 1000 === 0 ) {
                setTimeout( function() {
                    potAsyncLoop( i+1, resume ); 
                }, 0 );
            } else {
                potAsyncLoop( i+1, resume ); 
            }
        }
    } else {
        resume();
    }
}
potAsyncLoop( 0, function() {
    // code after the loop
    ...
});
like image 197
heinob Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 09:10

heinob


I found a dirty solution:

/bin/bash -c "ulimit -s 65500; exec /usr/local/bin/node --stack-size=65500 /path/to/app.js"

It just increase call stack limit. I think that this is not suitable for production code, but I needed it for script that run only once.

like image 26
user1518183 Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 07:10

user1518183


In some languages this can be solved with tail call optimization, where the recursion call is transformed under the hood into a loop so no maximum stack size reached error exists.

But in javascript the current engines don't support this, it's foreseen for new version of the language Ecmascript 6.

Node.js has some flags to enable ES6 features but tail call is not yet available.

So you can refactor your code to implement a technique called trampolining, or refactor in order to transform recursion into a loop.

like image 37
Angular University Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 08:10

Angular University


I had a similar issue as this. I had an issue with using multiple Array.map()'s in a row (around 8 maps at once) and was getting a maximum_call_stack_exceeded error. I solved this by changing the map's into 'for' loops

So if you are using alot of map calls, changing them to for loops may fix the problem

Edit

Just for clarity and probably-not-needed-but-good-to-know-info, using .map() causes the array to be prepped (resolving getters , etc) and the callback to be cached, and also internally keeps an index of the array (so the callback is provided with the correct index/value). This stacks with each nested call, and caution is advised when not nested as well, as the next .map() could be called before the first array is garbage collected (if at all).

Take this example:

var cb = *some callback function*
var arr1 , arr2 , arr3 = [*some large data set]
arr1.map(v => {
    *do something
})
cb(arr1)
arr2.map(v => {
    *do something // even though v is overwritten, and the first array
                  // has been passed through, it is still in memory
                  // because of the cached calls to the callback function
}) 

If we change this to:

for(var|let|const v in|of arr1) {
    *do something
}
cb(arr1)
for(var|let|const v in|of arr2) {
    *do something  // Here there is not callback function to 
                   // store a reference for, and the array has 
                   // already been passed of (gone out of scope)
                   // so the garbage collector has an opportunity
                   // to remove the array if it runs low on memory
}

I hope this makes some sense (I don't have the best way with words) and helps a few to prevent the head scratching I went through

If anyone is interested, here is also a performance test comparing map and for loops (not my work).

https://github.com/dg92/Performance-Analysis-JS

For loops are usually better than map, but not reduce, filter, or find

like image 5
Werlious Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 07:10

Werlious


Pre:

for me the program with the Max call stack wasn't because of my code. It ended up being a different issue which caused the congestion in the flow of the application. So because I was trying to add too many items to mongoDB without any configuration chances the call stack issue was popping and it took me a few days to figure out what was going on....that said:


Following up with what @Jeff Lowery answered: I enjoyed this answer so much and it sped up the process of what I was doing by 10x at least.

I'm new at programming but I attempted to modularize the answer it. Also, didn't like the error being thrown so I wrapped it in a do while loop instead. If anything I did is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

module.exports = function(object) {
    const { max = 1000000000n, fn } = object;
    let counter = 0;
    let running = true;
    Error.stackTraceLimit = 100;
    const A = (fn) => {
        fn();
        flipper = B;
    };
    const B = (fn) => {
        fn();
        flipper = A;
    };
    let flipper = B;
    const then = process.hrtime.bigint();
    do {
        counter++;
        if (counter > max) {
            const now = process.hrtime.bigint();
            const nanos = now - then;
            console.log({ 'runtime(sec)': Number(nanos) / 1000000000.0 });
            running = false;
        }
        flipper(fn);
        continue;
    } while (running);
};

Check out this gist to see the my files and how to call the loop. https://gist.github.com/gngenius02/3c842e5f46d151f730b012037ecd596c

like image 2
cigol on Avatar answered Oct 19 '22 07:10

cigol on