could multiple goroutines invoke bufio Read function at same time. I read the source code of bufio, and looks like it doesn't have proper method to protect buffer would only read by one goroutine.
No, reading from a buffer is not a thread safe operation. You have to manage coordination. Thing is, a read from the buffer modifies it's state there's not really any reasonable way to do it concurrently. There's a position marker that has to be moved at the end of the read so you can't begin a second read until the first completes.
Related
I have implemented a custom Write interface for my cloud program.
My problem so far is that after i am done copying files to my writer and closed the Writer, the writer still has a few Writes to do(usually maybe 4 writes about 4096 bytes each). The last Write is usually less than 4096.
This has not happened yet but i know it is a probability of 1/4096 that the last Write is 4096 bytes and my program won't terminate.
I am using this for a zipping program and io.EOF is not effective as every write chunk has one, also checking if writer is closed comes too early while there are still some writes to do.
What is the best way to handle this situation?
***EDIT*****
I ended up implementing a more Robust Write(), Flush() and Close() method.Now everything is good if i use defer Close() but i still get the same problem if i manually call Close() at the end
since you have full control on the writer, you could use a waitgroup
to wait in your main for all goroutines to finish.
Problem was solved by implementing a more robust Close() function. I also used defer Close() to make sure that Golang handled all the Goroutines internally.
I am currently doing the Ruby on the Web project for The Odin Project. The goal is to implement a very basic webserver that parses and responds to GET or POST requests.
My solution uses IO#gets and IO#read(maxlen) together with the Content-Length Header attribute to do the parsing.
Other solution use IO#read_nonblock. I googled for it, but was quite confused with the documentation for it. It's often mentioned together with Kernel#select, which didn't really help either.
Can someone explain to me what the nonblock calls do differently than the normal ones, how they avoid blocking the thread of execution, and how they play together with the Kernel#select method?
explain to me what the nonblock calls do differently than the normal ones
The crucial difference in behavior is when there is no data available to read at call time, but not at EOF:
read_nonblock() raises an exception kind of IO::WaitReadable
normal read(length) waits until length bytes are read (or EOF)
how they avoid blocking the thread of execution
According to the documentation, #read_nonblock is using the read(2) system call after O_NONBLOCK is set for the underlying file descriptor.
how they play together with the Kernel#select method?
There's also IO.select. We can use it in this case to wait for availability of input data, so that a subsequent read_nonblock() won't cause an error. This is especially useful if there are multiple input streams, where it is not known from which stream data will arrive next and for which read() would have to be called.
In a blocking write you wait until bytes got written to a file, on the other hand a nonblocking write exits immediately. It means, that you can continue to execute your program, while operating system asynchronously writes data to a file. Then, when you want to write again, you use select to see whether the file is ready to accept next write.
I have a situation where I need to concurrently read/write from/to the file, but the scope of operations is limited:
append only, no random offset writes
read from random position, where I know for sure the content has been written before(via append, internal access serialization via golang channel to ensure random read happens only after content's been appended)
there is only one process running
This is a high loaded application and I would like to avoid locking file for each read/write I do
I was going to open 2 files - one for read, another for append only
would doing so create some potential issues/bugs?
what is the recommended practice if I would like to avoid file locking for each read/write I do?
p.s. golang, linux, ext4
I'll assume by "random read" you actually mean "arbitrary read".
If I understand your use case correctly, you don't need to seek or lock or do anything manual. UNIX has this covered via O_APPEND. Here is what you can do:
Open the file with os.O_APPEND. This way every write, regardless of any preceding operations, will go to the end of the file
When reading use File.ReadAt. This lets you specify arbitrary offsets for your reads
Using this scheme you can avoid any sort of locking: the OS will do it for you. Because of the buffer cache this scheme is not even inefficient: appends and reads are pretty much independent.
I am making it so that it stops asking for input upon CTRL-C.
What I have currently is that a separate go-routine, upon receiving a CTRL-C, changes the value of a variable so it won't ask for another line. However, I can't seem to find a way around the current line.
i.e. I still have to press enter once, to get out of the current iteration of reading for \n.
Is there perhaps a way to push a "\n" into stdin for the reader.ReadString to read. Or a way to stop its execution altogether.
The only decent mechanism that Go gives you to proceed when either of two things happens is select, and select only selects on channel reads, so your only option is to change your signal-handler goroutine to write to a channel, and add another goroutine that handles stdin and passes lines of input to a channel, then select on the two channels.
However, that still leaves your question half-unanswered: your main program can stop waiting for input on a Ctrl-C, but the goroutine that's reading input will still be waiting for input. In some cases that might be okay... if you will never need stdin again, or if you will go right back to processing lines in the same exact way. But if you want to do something other than ReadString from that reader, you're stuck... literally. The only solution I see would be to write your own state machine around Read or ReadByte that is capable of changing its behavior in response to external conditions, but that can easily get horribly complicated.
Basically, this looks like a case where Go simplifies things compared to the underlying system (not exposing anything like EINTR, not allowing select on filehandles), but ends up providing less power to the programmer.
I am writing a win32 app which is using the namedpipe for inter-process communication. When one process is trying to writeFile, it will write the structure (tell other process how many bytes and other info), then it will write the actual data by calling WriteFile again.
The other process, when it is reading, it read the first msg, and then read the second msg based on the information got from the first msg.
My questions are:
If the server process is writing the data, but the client process hasn't read it yet, is it possible to lost the first msg when the client is reading? Example, when the server is calling WriteFile at the second time to write actual data, will the previous msg was overwritten?
Is there any best solution to use waitforsingleobject to sync?
Thanks
A pipe is a little like a real pipe -- when you write more to the pipe, it doesn't overwrite what was already in the pipe. It just adds more data to the pipe that will be delivered after the data that you previously wrote to the pipe.
I rarely find WaitForSingleObject useful for a pipe. If you want to block the current thread until it receives data from the pipe, you can just do a synchronous read, and it'll block until there's data. If you want to block until there's input from any of a number of sources, you usually want WaitForMultipleObjects or MsgWaitForMultipleObjects, so your thread will run when any of the sources has input to process.
The only times I can recall using WaitForSingleObject on a pipe were with a zero timeout, so the receiver would continue other processing if there was no pipe input, and every once in a while check if the pipe has some data to process. While it initially seems like PeekNamedPipe would work for this, it's really most useful for other purposes -- though it might work for you, to read the header data and figure out what other code to invoke to read and process the entire message.
Having said all that, I feel obliged to point out that I haven't written any new code using named pipes in quite a while. I can think of very few situations in which I'd even consider them today -- I'd almost always use sockets instead.