Per user mutex #2175

YonkoSam · 2025-12-12T21:50:08Z

Right now, message locking was global, which slowed things down a lot for accounts with many groups and chats. This PR changes it so that each user (remoteJid) has its own lock.

Files updated: chats.ts, messages-recv.ts, messages-send.ts

Performance improvement is huge up to 100x faster in heavy accounts

⚠️ Needs testing to ensure no race conditions are introduced.

Hey, I've been debugging a memory leak in my application and traced it back to the makeMutex implementation. The current implementation chains promises indefinitely without ever breaking the chain: Every call to mutex() creates a new Promise that awaits the previous task, then becomes the new task. The problem is the old promises never get released because each one holds a reference to the previous through the closure. What I found Took a heap snapshot after running for a while and found hundreds of Promises from make-mutex.js holding ~15MB and growing. The retainer graph shows a long chain of Promises all pointing back to each other. Since processingMutex handles every incoming message/notification, this chain grows constantly and never shrinks. This keeps the same mutex behavior but lets the GC clean up old promises every 50 tasks instead of holding them forever.

whiskeysockets-bot · 2025-12-12T21:50:16Z

Thanks for opening this pull request and contributing to the project!

The next step is for the maintainers to review your changes. If everything looks good, it will be approved and merged into the main branch.

In the meantime, anyone in the community is encouraged to test this pull request and provide feedback.

✅ How to confirm it works

If you’ve tested this PR, please comment below with:

Tested and working ✅

This helps us speed up the review and merge process.

📦 To test this PR locally:

# NPM
npm install @whiskeysockets/baileys@YonkoSam/Baileys#per-user-mutex

# Yarn (v2+)
yarn add @whiskeysockets/baileys@YonkoSam/Baileys#per-user-mutex

# PNPM
pnpm add @whiskeysockets/baileys@YonkoSam/Baileys#per-user-mutex

If you encounter any issues or have feedback, feel free to comment as well.

…v and messages-send

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR migrates from global message locking to per-user (per-remoteJid) locking to significantly improve performance in accounts with many concurrent chats and groups. The change introduces a new makeKeyedMutex function that maintains separate mutex instances per key, allowing operations on different users/chats to proceed in parallel while still preventing race conditions within each individual chat.

Key Changes:

Replaced global makeMutex() with makeKeyedMutex() for message, receipt, and notification processing
Updated all mutex calls to include a key parameter (remoteJid or msgId)
Refactored message handling to extract and use remoteJid and msgId as mutex keys

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

File	Description
src/Socket/chats.ts	Converted messageMutex, receiptMutex, and notificationMutex from global to keyed mutexes; updated import statement
src/Socket/messages-recv.ts	Added makeKeyedMutex import, converted retryMutex to keyed mutex, updated all mutex calls to pass remoteJid or msgId as key parameter
src/Socket/messages-send.ts	Updated messageMutex.mutex call to include jid parameter for per-user locking

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:57Z

src/Socket/messages-send.ts

 				if (config.emitOwnEvents) {
 					process.nextTick(async () => {
-						await messageMutex.mutex(() => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))
+						await messageMutex.mutex(jid,() => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))


Missing space after comma in the mutex function call. The function call should be messageMutex.mutex(jid, () => ...) with a space after the comma for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

await messageMutex.mutex(jid,() => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))

await messageMutex.mutex(jid, () => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:58Z

src/Socket/chats.ts

 	processSyncAction
 } from '../Utils'
-import { makeMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'
+import { makeMutex , makeKeyedMutex} from '../Utils/make-mutex'


Inconsistent spacing in the import statement. There should be no space before the comma in makeMutex , makeKeyedMutex. The correct format is makeMutex, makeKeyedMutex for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

import { makeMutex , makeKeyedMutex} from '../Utils/make-mutex'

import { makeMutex, makeKeyedMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:58Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts

 		try {
 			await Promise.all([
-				receiptMutex.mutex(async () => {
+				receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {


Missing space after comma in the mutex function call. The function call should be receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => ...) with a space after the comma for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {

receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => {

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:59Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts

 		try {
 			await Promise.all([
-				notificationMutex.mutex(async () => {
+				notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {


Missing space after comma in the mutex function call. The function call should be notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => ...) with a space after the comma for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {

notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => {

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:59Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts


 		try {
-			await messageMutex.mutex(async () => {
+			await messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid,async () => {


Missing space after comma in the mutex function call. The function call should be messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid, async () => ...) with a space after the comma for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

await messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid,async () => {

await messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid, async () => {

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:59Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts


 					// Handle both pre-key and normal retries in single mutex
-					await retryMutex.mutex(async () => {
+					await retryMutex.mutex(msgId,async () => {


Missing space after comma in the mutex function call. The function call should be retryMutex.mutex(msgId, async () => ...) with a space after the comma for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

await retryMutex.mutex(msgId,async () => {

await retryMutex.mutex(msgId, async () => {

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:54:59Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts

+		const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid!;
+		const msgId = msg.key.id!;


Using the non-null assertion operator (!) on lines 1211-1212 but then checking for null/undefined on line 1214 is contradictory. Either remove the non-null assertions and use optional chaining (e.g., const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid;), or remove the null checks on line 1214. The original code used optional chaining to safely check existence before use. If these values can be null/undefined, the non-null assertion could cause runtime errors.

Suggested change

const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid!;

const msgId = msg.key.id!;

const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid;

const msgId = msg.key.id;

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:55:00Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts

+		const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid!;
+		const msgId = msg.key.id!;
+
+		if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId ) {


Extra space before the closing parenthesis. The condition should be if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId) without a space before the closing parenthesis, for consistency with standard TypeScript formatting.

Suggested change

if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId ) {

if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId) {

Copilot · 2025-12-12T21:55:00Z

src/Socket/messages-recv.ts

 	xmppSignedPreKey
 } from '../Utils'
-import { makeMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'
+import { makeKeyedMutex, makeMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'


Unused import makeMutex.

Suggested change

import { makeKeyedMutex, makeMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'

import { makeKeyedMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'

Salientekill · 2025-12-13T00:41:48Z

All that's missing is the lint to make it 100%.

purpshell · 2025-12-14T17:26:12Z

@jlucaso1 running on bartender, will report with any interesting findings

Salientekill · 2025-12-14T21:15:04Z

Will you apply the copilot changes? And the lint still needs fixing 😄

purpshell · 2025-12-14T22:21:05Z

The bartender PR does not produce meaningful changes. I think its cuz we are the same sender. It would require like 10-20 senders on bartender I guess to make impact. @jlucaso1 do I create 10 mock senders on there? Not sure if it would be difficult or not

purpshell · 2025-12-15T01:09:09Z

Just tested on multiple senders, this PR is potentially a risk. More work needs to be done in this field. Converting PR to draft

Salientekill · 2025-12-15T01:17:35Z

Just tested on multiple senders, this PR is potentially a risk. More work needs to be done in this field. Converting PR to draft

What are the risks and what needs to be improved?

YonkoSam · 2025-12-15T12:25:05Z

@purpshell Logically, this is a huge performance boost from O(n) to O(1), but I might be wrong.

jlucaso1 · 2025-12-15T12:40:59Z

@YonkoSam, that's a good suggestion. I think we can go further and implement user-specific blocking only on the signal adapter, instead of high-level blocking. We can increase the transfer rate in different chats. I'm talking with @purpshell about so many mutex and locks in the project, some are unecessary and add overhead.

YonkoSam · 2025-12-15T12:43:55Z

@jlucaso1 Yes, the mutex was causing high memory usage and eventually high CPU usage (when GC kicks in), especially with the old mutex implementation.

YonkoSam · 2025-12-15T12:44:44Z

What do you think about this pull request? I closed it because @purpshell mentioned it introduces race conditions, although I’m running it in production right now and it’s working fine.

jlucaso1 · 2025-12-15T12:50:33Z

@YonkoSam something broken the stress test and is causing messages not being delivered, we don't know the cause yet. You can reopen for further investigation, no problem.

YonkoSam · 2025-12-15T12:57:26Z

I think we should also try this in real production with high instances.

github-actions · 2025-12-30T02:16:50Z

This PR is stale because it has been open for 14 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days

YonkoSam added 6 commits December 5, 2025 19:43

Refactor makeMutex to use AsyncMutex directly

04d934c

lint

b79fd3a

Merge branch 'master' into master

860fe5a

revert

b15f2a9

Merge branch 'WhiskeySockets:master' into master

8279e98

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 12, 2025 21:50

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of YonkoSam December 12, 2025 21:50 View session

Refactor message handling: per-user mutex, update chats, messages-rec…

8993afd

…v and messages-send

YonkoSam force-pushed the per-user-mutex branch from aab5d8e to 8993afd Compare December 12, 2025 21:53

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

YonkoSam marked this pull request as draft December 12, 2025 21:56

lint

c86b623

YonkoSam force-pushed the per-user-mutex branch from 7783603 to c86b623 Compare December 12, 2025 22:04

YonkoSam marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2025 22:05

Merge branch 'WhiskeySockets:master' into per-user-mutex

3732496

purpshell marked this pull request as draft December 15, 2025 01:09

YonkoSam closed this Dec 15, 2025

YonkoSam reopened this Dec 15, 2025

github-actions bot added the Stale label Dec 30, 2025

	await messageMutex.mutex(jid,() => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))
	await messageMutex.mutex(jid, () => upsertMessage(fullMsg, 'append'))

	import { makeMutex , makeKeyedMutex} from '../Utils/make-mutex'
	import { makeMutex, makeKeyedMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'

	receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {
	receiptMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => {

	notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!,async () => {
	notificationMutex.mutex(remoteJid!, async () => {

	await messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid,async () => {
	await messageMutex.mutex(remoteJid, async () => {

	await retryMutex.mutex(msgId,async () => {
	await retryMutex.mutex(msgId, async () => {

		const remoteJid = msg.key.remoteJid!;
		const msgId = msg.key.id!;

	if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId ) {
	if (messageRetryManager && remoteJid && msgId) {

	import { makeKeyedMutex, makeMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'
	import { makeKeyedMutex } from '../Utils/make-mutex'

Uh oh!

Per user mutex #2175

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Per user mutex #2175

Conversation

YonkoSam commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

whiskeysockets-bot commented Dec 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ How to confirm it works

📦 To test this PR locally:

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Salientekill commented Dec 13, 2025

Uh oh!

purpshell commented Dec 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Salientekill commented Dec 14, 2025

Uh oh!

purpshell commented Dec 14, 2025

Uh oh!

purpshell commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Salientekill commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

YonkoSam commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

jlucaso1 commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

YonkoSam commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

YonkoSam commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

jlucaso1 commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

YonkoSam commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

whiskeysockets-bot commented Dec 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading