I am running into an issue spawning a large number of processes (200) under MacOS X Mountain Lion (though I'm sure this issue is not version specific). What I am doing is launching processes (in my test it is /bin/cat) which have their STDIN, STDOUT, and STDERR connected to pipes -- the other end of which is the spawning (parent) process.
The parent process writes data into the STDIN of the processes, which is piped to the [/bin/cat] child processes, which in turn spit the data back out of STDOUT and is read by the parent process. /bin/cat is just used for testing.
I am actually using kqueue to be notified when there is space available in the STDIN pipe. When kqueue notifies you with a EVFILT_WRITE event that space is available, the event also tells you exactly how many bytes can be written without blocking.
This all works well, and I can easily spawn 100 child (/bin/cat) processes, and everything flows through the pipes without blocking (all day long). However, when I crank up the number of processes to 200 everything grinds to a halt when the single kqueue service thread blocks on a write() call to one of the STDIN pipes. The event says that there is 16384 bytes available (basically an empty pipe) but when the program tries to write exactly 16384 bytes into the pipe, the write() blocks anyway.
Initially I thought I was running into a max. open files issue, but I've jacked up the ulimit for open files to 8192, so that is not the issue. What I have discovered from some googling is that on OS X, STDIN/STDOUT/STDERR are not in fact "files" (or "pipes") but are actually devices. When the process is hung, running lsof on the command-line also hangs with a warning about not being able to stat() the file system:
lsof: WARNING: can't stat() hfs file system /
Output information may be incomplete.
assuming "dev=1000008" from mount table
As soon as I kill the process, lsof completes. This reinforces the notion that STDIN/OUT/ERR are in fact devices and I'm running into some kind of limit.
Does anyone have an idea of what limit I am running into, for example is there a limit on the number of "device" that can be created? Can this be increased somehow?
Just to answer my own question here. This appears to be related to how MacOS X will dynamically expand a pipe from 16K to 32K to 64K (and so on). My basic workaround was to prevent the pipe from expanding. It appears that whenever you fill the pipe completely the OS will expand it. So, when the kqueue triggers that I can write into the pipe, and indicates that I have 16384 bytes available to write, I simply write 16384 - 1 bytes. Basically, whatever it tells me I have available, I write at most (available - 1) bytes. This prevents the pipe from expanding, and is preventing my code from encountering the condition where a write() to the pipe would block (even though the pipe is non-blocking).
Related
How does printing to terminal affect memory usage? Would it just keep eating up memory until OOM?
What about in a docker container?
How does the OS handle the memory of prints to terminal?
Does the OS flush the terminal at a certain point?
When you call printf for printing to the terminal, the standard library will use line buffering and wait until a newline character to write the output. The size will depend on the implementation (might be 8K). See: In C, what's the size of stdout buffer?
. But this memory usage doesn't grow over time.
When written (via a write syscall), the buffer will get copied through pipes and ptys to end up in the terminal emulator, which then displays it on the screen. Aside from the scrollback buffer of the terminal emulator, it does not accumulate anywhere along this path.
Most terminal emulators will have a limit for the scrollback buffer, that defaults to a few thousand lines. The old lines would be presumably deallocated after this limit. Some terminal emulators provide an option to remove the limit, which means it could grow until OOM (I believe on macOS, the Terminal app actually handles this event to clear the scrollback buffer) and the terminal emulator might be killed by the OOM-killer. From the OS perspective, it is not different than any other inter-process communication.
A container may only affect the creation of the pipes. It is still the process calling the printf, sending the resulting buffer to the terminal emulator process, through the kernel.
I am attempting to do a relatively simple task using boost interprocess semaphore and shared memory. I want to fixed buffer of data shared between two processes, where the first process is a producer and the second process is a consumer. The buffer will consist of 3 parts. The first part will be a boost::interprocess::semaphore, used to coordinate the producer/consumer. The second part will just be an integer, so the consumer knows how many items are on the buffer. The third part will be the actual array of items. I have a very basic implementation started, but the processes hang when attempting to access open the shared memory, and i'm not certain why. I am doing this on 64-bit Centos 6.5 with gcc/g++ 4.8.2. I should note also that the machine has two CPUs, and using process affinity I am ensuring that the producer and the consumer both run on separate CPUs.
The code is at http://pastie.org/9693362. I am experiencing the following issues; with the code as is, the consumer and producer both hang at line 3 (fixed_managed_shared_memory shm(open_only, "SharedMem" );). If i comment that line out, then both end up terminating (no error is caught however) at line 26 (the post/wait on the semaphore). This makes me think that somehow the memory isnt being shared, b/c when i print out the addresses, they seem to be properly formed (as in the offsets seem to be correct), and they are properly passed between processes. Is there something I'm missing on how to properly set this up?
How to execute xterm from XWindow program, insert it into my window, but continue execution both while xterm is active and after it was closed?
In my XWindows (XLib over XCB) application I want to execute xterm -Into <handle>. So that my window contains xterm window in it. Unfortunately something wrong is happening.
pseudo code:
if (fork() == 0) {
pipe = popen('xterm -Into ' + handle);
while (feof(pipe)) gets(pipe);
exit(0);
}
I tired system() and execvp() as well. Every thing is fine until I exit from bash that runs in xterm, then my program exits. I guess that connection to X server is lost because it is shared between parent and child.
UPDATE: here is what is shown on terminal after program exits (or rather crashes).
XIO: fatal IO error 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable) on X server ":0.0"
after 59 requests (59 known processed) with 1 events remaining.
[xcb] Unknown sequence number while processing queue
[xcb] Most likely this is a multi-threaded client and XInitThreads has not been called
[xcb] Aborting, sorry about that.
y: ../../src/xcb_io.c:274: poll_for_event: Assertion `!xcb_xlib_threads_sequence_lost' failed.
Aborted
One possibility is that you are terminating due to the SIGCHLD signal not
being ignored and causing your program to abort.
signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
Another is, as you suspect something actively closing the X session. Just
closing the socket itself should not matter but are you using a library that
registers an atexit call it could cause an issue.
Since from your snippet,
it looks like you don't actually care about the stdout of the xterm, a
better way to do it would be to actuall close fd's 0,1,2. Also since it looks
like you don't need to do anything in the child process after xterm
terminates you can use 'exec' rather than 'popen' to fully replace the
child process with that of the xterm including any cleanup handlers that
were left around. Though, I am not sure how pruned your snippet is from what you want to do as obviously the call to 'gets' is not what you want.
to make sure the X connection is closed, you can set its close on exec flag
with the following. (this will work on POSIX systems where the x connection
number is the fd of the server socket)
fcntl(XConnectionNumber(display), F_SETFD, fcntl(XConnectionNumber(display), F_GETFD) | FD_CLOEXEC);
Also note that 'popen' itself forks in the background in addition to your fork, I think you probably want to do an execvp there then use waitpid(... , WNOHANG) to check for the childs termination in your main X11 loop if you care to know when it exited.
How does the Linux kernel implement the shared memory mechanism between different processes?
To elaborate further, each process has its own address space. For example, an address of 0x1000 in Process A is a different location when compared to an address of 0x1000 in Process B.
So how does the kernel ensure that a piece of memory is shared between different process, having different address spaces?
Thanks in advance.
Interprocess Communication Mechanisms
Processes communicate with each other and with the kernel to coordinate their activities. Linux supports a number of Inter-Process Communication (IPC) mechanisms. Signals and pipes are two of them but Linux also supports the System V IPC mechanisms named after the Unix TM release in which they first appeared.
Signals
Signals are one of the oldest inter-process communication methods used by Unix TM systems. They are used to signal asynchronous events to one or more processes. A signal could be generated by a keyboard interrupt or an error condition such as the process attempting to access a non-existent location in its virtual memory. Signals are also used by the shells to signal job control commands to their child processes.
There are a set of defined signals that the kernel can generate or that can be generated by other processes in the system, provided that they have the correct privileges. You can list a system's set of signals using the kill command (kill -l).
Pipes
The common Linux shells all allow redirection. For example
$ ls | pr | lpr
pipes the output from the ls command listing the directory's files into the standard input of the pr command which paginates them. Finally the standard output from the pr command is piped into the standard input of the lpr command which prints the results on the default printer. Pipes then are unidirectional byte streams which connect the standard output from one process into the standard input of another process. Neither process is aware of this redirection and behaves just as it would normally. It is the shell which sets up these temporary pipes between the processes.
In Linux, a pipe is implemented using two file data structures which both point at the same temporary VFS inode which itself points at a physical page within memory. Figure shows that each file data structure contains pointers to different file operation routine vectors; one for writing to the pipe, the other for reading from the pipe.
Sockets
Message Queues: Message queues allow one or more processes to write messages, which will be read by one or more reading processes. Linux maintains a list of message queues, the msgque vector; each element of which points to a msqid_ds data structure that fully describes the message queue. When message queues are created a new msqid_ds data structure is allocated from system memory and inserted into the vector.
System V IPC Mechanisms: Linux supports three types of interprocess communication mechanisms that first appeared in Unix TM System V (1983). These are message queues, semaphores and shared memory. These System V IPC mechanisms all share common authentication methods. Processes may access these resources only by passing a unique reference identifier to the kernel via system calls. Access to these System V IPC objects is checked using access permissions, much like accesses to files are checked. The access rights to the System V IPC object is set by the creator of the object via system calls. The object's reference identifier is used by each mechanism as an index into a table of resources. It is not a straight forward index but requires some manipulation to generate the index.
Semaphores: In its simplest form a semaphore is a location in memory whose value can be tested and set by more than one process. The test and set operation is, so far as each process is concerned, uninterruptible or atomic; once started nothing can stop it. The result of the test and set operation is the addition of the current value of the semaphore and the set value, which can be positive or negative. Depending on the result of the test and set operation one process may have to sleep until the semphore's value is changed by another process. Semaphores can be used to implement critical regions, areas of critical code that only one process at a time should be executing.
Say you had many cooperating processes reading records from and writing records to a single data file. You would want that file access to be strictly coordinated. You could use a semaphore with an initial value of 1 and, around the file operating code, put two semaphore operations, the first to test and decrement the semaphore's value and the second to test and increment it. The first process to access the file would try to decrement the semaphore's value and it would succeed, the semaphore's value now being 0. This process can now go ahead and use the data file but if another process wishing to use it now tries to decrement the semaphore's value it would fail as the result would be -1. That process will be suspended until the first process has finished with the data file. When the first process has finished with the data file it will increment the semaphore's value, making it 1 again. Now the waiting process can be woken and this time its attempt to increment the semaphore will succeed.
Shared Memory: Shared memory allows one or more processes to communicate via memory that appears in all of their virtual address spaces. The pages of the virtual memory is referenced by page table entries in each of the sharing processes' page tables. It does not have to be at the same address in all of the processes' virtual memory. As with all System V IPC objects, access to shared memory areas is controlled via keys and access rights checking. Once the memory is being shared, there are no checks on how the processes are using it. They must rely on other mechanisms, for example System V semaphores, to synchronize access to the memory.
Quoted from tldp.org.
There are two kinds of shared memory in Linux.
If A and B are Parent process and Child process respectively, each of them uses their own pte to access the shared memory.The shared memory is shared by the fork mechanism. So every thing is good, right?(More details, please look at the kernel function copy_one_pte() and related functions.)
If A and B are not parent and Child, they use the a public key to access the shared memory.
Let's assume that A creates a shared memory though System V shmget() with a key and, correspondly, the kernel creates a file(file name is "SYSTEMV+key") for process A in a shmem/tmpfs which is an internal RAM-based filesystem. It's mounted by the kenrel(Check shmem_init()). And the shared memory region is handled by shmem/tmpfs. Basically, it's handled by the page fault mechanism when process A accesses the shared memory region.
If process B wants to access that shared memory region created by process A. Process B should use shmget() with the same key used by Process A. Then process B can find the file("SYSTEMV+key") and map the file into Process B's address space.
A Win32 application (the "server") is sending a continuous stream of data over a named pipe. GetNamedPipeInfo() tells me that input and output buffer sizes are automatically allocated as needed. The pipe is operating in byte mode (although it is sending data units that are bigger than 1 byte (doubles, to be precise)).
Now, my question is this: Can I somehow verify that my application (the "client") is not missing any data when reading from the pipe? I know that those read/write operations are buffered, but I suppose the buffers will not grow indefinitely if the client doesn't fetch the data quickly enough. How do I know if I missed something? Does the server (or the pipe?) silently discard data that is not read in time by the client?
BTW, can I rely on proper alignment of the data the client reads using ReadFile()? As far as I understood, ReadFile() may return with less bytes read than specified, i.e. NumberOfBytesRead <= NumberOfBytesToRead. Do I have to check every time that NumberOfBytesRead is a multiple of sizeof(double)?
The write operation will block if there is no more room in the pipe's buffers. This is from my (old) copy of the SDK manual:
When an application uses the WriteFile
function to write to a pipe, the write
operation may not finish if the pipe
buffer is full. The write operation is
completed when a read operation (using
the ReadFile function) makes more
buffer space available.
Sorry, didn't find out how to comment on your post, Neil.
The write operation will block if there is no more room in the pipe's buffers.
I just discovered that Sysinternals' FileMon can also monitor pipe operations. For testing purposes I connected the client to the named pipe and did no read operations, just waiting. The server writes a few hundred kB to the pipe every 4--5 seconds, even though nobody is fetching the data from the pipe on the client side. No blocking write operation ... And so far no limits in buffer-size seem to have been reached.
This is either a very big buffer ... or the server does some magic additional to just using WriteFile() and waiting for the client to read.