From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
To: sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com
Cc: 'cygwin' <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Named pipes and multiple writers
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:34:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b5b058e-5047-4d49-8c31-5553056f3845@cornell.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001601d60848$fcffd320$f6ff7960$@gmail.com>
On 4/1/2020 1:14 PM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 4/1/2020 4:52 AM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2020 5:10 PM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2020 10:19 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2020 11:43 AM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2020 8:10 AM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2020 10:53 AM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2020 7:19 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2020 6:39 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2020 6:01 PM, sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ENIXIO occurs when parallel child-processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously using O_NONBLOCK opening the descriptor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is consistent with my guess that the error is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated by fhandler_fifo::wait. I have a feeling that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read_ready should have been created as a manual-reset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event, and that more care is needed to make sure it's set
> when it should be.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>>> Never mind. I was able to reproduce the problem and find the cause.
>>>>>>> What happens is that when the first subprocess exits,
>>>>>>> fhandler_fifo::close resets read_ready. That causes the second
>>>>>>> and subsequent subprocesses to think that there's no reader open,
>>>>>>> so their attempts to open a writer with O_NONBLOCK fail with ENXIO.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I wrote in a previous mail in this topic that it seemed to work fine
>>> for me as well, but when I bumped up the numbers of writers and/or the
>>> number of messages (e.g. 25/25) it starts to fail again
>
> [snip]
>
>> Yes, it is a resource issue. There is a limit on the number of writers
> that can be open at one
>> time, currently 64. I chose that number arbitrarily, with no idea what
> might actually be
>> needed in practice, and it can easily be changed.
>
> Does it have to be a limit at all ? We would rather see that the application
> decide how much resources it would like to use. In our particular case there
> will be a process-manager with an incoming pipe that possible several
> thousands of processes will write to
I agree.
> Just for fiddling around (to figure out if this is the limit that make other
> things work a bit odd), where's this 64 limit defined now ?
It's MAX_CLIENTS, defined in fhandler.h. But there seem to be other resource
issues also; simply increasing MAX_CLIENTS doesn't solve the problem. I think
there are also problems with the number of threads, for example. Each time your
program forks, the subprocess inherits the rfd file descriptor and its
"fifo_reader_thread" starts up. This is unnecessary for your application, so I
tried disabling it (in fhandler_fifo::fixup_after_fork), just as an experiment.
But then I ran into some deadlocks, suggesting that one of the locks I'm using
isn't robust enough. So I've got a lot of things to work on.
>> In addition, a writer isn't recognized as closed until a reader tries to
> read and gets an error.
>> In your example with 25/25, the list of writers quickly gets to 64 before
> the parent ever tries
>> to read.
>
> That explains the behaviour, but should there be some error returned from
> open/write (maybe it is but I'm missing it) ?
The error is discovered in add_client_handler, called from thread_func. I think
you'll only see it if you run the program under strace. I'll see if I can find
a way to report it. Currently, there's a retry loop in fhandler_fifo::open when
a writer tries to open, and I think I need to limit the number of retries and
then error out.
Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-01 18:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 11:11 sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-03-25 12:44 ` Ken Brown
[not found] ` <18be01d602ab$0bbfca30$233f5e90$@gmail.com>
2020-03-26 14:06 ` Sv: " Ken Brown
2020-03-26 15:11 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-26 16:03 ` Norton Allen
2020-03-26 16:44 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-26 17:00 ` Norton Allen
2020-03-26 22:01 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-03-26 22:39 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-26 23:19 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-27 13:10 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-27 14:53 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-03-27 22:56 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-27 23:00 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-28 12:10 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-03-28 15:43 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-29 2:19 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-30 17:44 ` Ken Brown
2020-03-31 21:10 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-03-31 22:02 ` Ken Brown
2020-04-01 7:45 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-04-01 13:47 ` Ken Brown
2020-04-01 8:52 ` sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-04-01 16:15 ` Ken Brown
2020-04-01 17:14 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-04-01 18:34 ` Ken Brown [this message]
2020-04-02 2:19 ` Ken Brown
2020-04-02 8:05 ` Sv: " sten.kristian.ivarsson
2020-04-02 12:47 ` Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Named pipes and multiple wri Gregery Barton
2020-04-02 18:21 ` Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Named pipes and multiple writers Ken Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7b5b058e-5047-4d49-8c31-5553056f3845@cornell.edu \
--to=kbrown@cornell.edu \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
--cc=sten.kristian.ivarsson@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).