I have created a COM object server exe which implements a COM Object, and calls to CoRegisterClassObject, and then sleeps for a long time (to prevent the process from exiting)
After running it, I have another COM client exe which calls to CoCreateInstance with the CLSID of the object registered previously on CoRegisterClassObject,
CoCreateInstance freezes the thread, but if I close the COM Server process - then CoCreateInstance returns immediately with "Class not registered.".
Do any of you know what's going on?
Thank you.
and then sleeps for a long time (to prevent the process from exiting)
Supposedly, server side object lives in STA, which in turn requires message pump/dispatching on its thread to be in good standing. Freezing the thread by sleeping there you block its operation. Client process waits for communication with server process/apartment and expectedly locks as well.
You need to replace your Sleep call with a message pump loop:
MSG Message;
while(GetMessage(&Message, NULL, WM_NULL, WM_NULL) > 0)
{
TranslateMessage(&Message);
DispatchMessage(&Message);
}
A typical process exit prevention is periodic check for amount of outstanding external COM references. If the counter was ever greater than zero, and is zero at the check moment - it's a good time for exiting then.
Related
I have a application that runs periodically (it's a scheduled task). The task is launched once a minute, and normally only takes a few seconds to do its business, then exits.
But there's a ~1 in 80,000 chance (every two or three months) that the application will hang. The root cause is because we're using Microsoft ServerXmlHttpRequest component to perform some work, and sometimes it just decides to hang. The virtue of ServerXmlHttpRequest over XmlHttpRequest is that the latter is not recommended for important scenarios, such as where reliability and security are important (which is true of an unattended server component):
The ServerXMLHTTP object offers functionality similar to that of the XMLHTTP object. Unlike XMLHTTP, however, the ServerXMLHTTP object does not rely on the WinInet control for HTTP access to remote XML documents. ServerXMLHTTP uses a new HTTP client stack. Designed for server applications, this server-safe subset of WinInet offers the following advantages:
Reliability — The HTTP client stack offers longer uptimes. WinInet features that are not critical for server applications, such as URL caching, auto-discovery of proxy servers, HTTP/1.1 chunking, offline support, and support for Gopher and FTP protocols are not included in the new HTTP subset.
Security — The HTTP client stack does not allow a user-specific state to be shared with another user's session. ServerXMLHTTP provides support for client certificates.
The job is being run as a scheduled task. I need the task to continue to run periodically; killing the existing process if it's dead.
The Windows Task Scheduler does have an option for forcibly close a task that is running too long:
The only downside to that approach is that it simply doesn't work - it simply does not stop the task. The hung process keeps running.
Given that i cannot trust the Microsoft ServerXmlHttpRequest to not arbitrarily lock up, and the task scheduler is unable to terminate the scheduled task, i need some way to do it myself.
Jobs
I tried looking into using the Job Objects API:
A job object allows groups of processes to be managed as a unit. Job objects are namable, securable, sharable objects that control attributes of the processes associated with them. A job can enforce limits such as working set size, process priority, and end-of-job time limit on each process that is associated with the job.
That one note sounded like exactly what i needed:
A job can enforce limits such as end-of-job time limit on each process that is associated with the job.
The only down-side to that approach is that it does not work. Job cannot impose a time-limit on a process. They can only impose a user time limit on a process:
PerProcessUserTimeLimit
If LimitFlags specifies JOB_OBJECT_LIMIT_PROCESS_TIME, this member is the per-process user-mode execution time limit, in 100-nanosecond ticks.
If the process is idle (for example, sitting at a MsgWaitForSingleObject as ServerXmlHttpRequest is), then it will accumulate no user time. I tested it. I created a job with a 1 second time limit, and placed my self process into it. As long as i don't move the mouse around my test application, it quite happily sits there for longer than one second.
Watchdog Thread
The only other technique i can imagine, given that my main thread is indefinitely blocked, is another thread. The only solution i can imagine is spawn another thread that will sleep for my three minutes, then ExitProcess:
Int32 watchdogTimeoutSeconds = FindCmdLineSwitch("watchdog", 0);
if (watchdogTimeoutSeconds > 0)
Thread thread = new Thread(KillMeCallback, new IntPtr(watchdogTimeoutSeconds));
void KillMeCallback(IntPtr data)
{
Int32 secondsUntilProcessIsExited = data.ToInt32();
if (secondsUntilProcessIsExited <= 0)
return;
Sleep(secondsUntilProcessIsExited*1000); //seconds --> milliseconds
LogToEventLog(ExtractFilename(Application.ExeName),
"Watchdog fired after "+secondsUntilProcessIsExited.ToString()+" seconds. Process will be forcibly exited.", EVENTLOG_WARNING_TYPE, 999);
ExitProcess(999);
}
And that works. The only downside is that it's a bad idea.
Can anyone think of anything better?
Edit
For now i will implement a
Contoso.exe /watchdog 180
So the process will be exited after 180 seconds. It means the duration is configurable, or can be removed completely easily in the field.
I used the route where i pass a special WatchDog argument to my process on the command line;
>Contoso.exe /watchdog 180
During initialization i check for the presence of the WatchDog option, with an integer number of seconds after it:
String s = Toolkit.FindCmdLineOption("watchdog", ["/", "-"]);
if (s <> "")
{
Int32 seconds = StrToIntDef(s, 0);
if (seconds > 0)
RunInThread(WatchdogThreadProc, Pointer(seconds));
}
and my thread procedure:
void WatchdogProc(Pointer Data);
{
Int32 secondsUntilProcessIsExited = Int32(Data);
if (secondsUntilProcessIsExited <= 0)
return;
Sleep(secondsUntilProcessIsExited*1000); //seconds -> milliseconds
LogToEventLog(ExtractFileName(ParamStr(0)),
Format("Watchdog fired after %d seconds. Process will be forcibly exited.", secondsUntilProcessIsExited),
EVENTLOG_WARNING_TYPE, 999);
ExitProcess(2);
}
I have the classic IOCP callback that dequeues i/o pending requests, process them, and deallocate them, in this way:
struct MyIoRequest { OVERLAPPED o; /* ... other params ... */ };
bool is_iocp_active = true;
DWORD WINAPI WorkerProc(LPVOID lpParam)
{
ULONG_PTR dwKey;
DWORD dwTrans;
LPOVERLAPPED io_req;
while(is_iocp_active)
{
GetQueuedCompletionStatus((HANDLE)lpParam, &dwTrans, &dwKey, (LPOVERLAPPED*)&io_req, WSA_INFINITE);
// NOTE, i could use GetQueuedCompletionStatusEx() here ^ and set it in the
// alertable state TRUE, so i can wake up the thread with an ACP request from another thread!
printf("dequeued an i/o request\n");
// [ process i/o request ]
...
// [ destroy request ]
destroy_request(io_req);
}
// [ clean up some stuff ]
return 0;
}
Then, in the code I will have somewhere:
MyIoRequest * io_req = allocate_request(...params...);
ReadFile(..., (OVERLAPPED*)io_req);
and this just works perfectly.
Now my question is: What about I want to immediately close the IOCP queue without causing leaks? (e.g. application must exit)
I mean: if i set is_iocp_active to 'false', the next time GetQueuedCompletionStatus() will dequeue a new i/o request, that will be the last i/o request: it will return, causing thread to exit and when a thread exits all of its pending i/o requests are simply canceled by the system, according to MSDN.
But the structures of type 'MyIoRequest' that I have instanced when calling ReadFile() won't be destroyed at all: the system has canceled pending i/o request, but I have to manually destroy those structures I have
created, or I will leak all pending i/o requests when I stop the loop!
So, how I could do this? Am I wrong to stop the IOCP loop with just setting that variable to false? Note that is would happen even if i use APC requests to stop an alertable thread.
The solution that come to my mind is to add every 'MyIoRequest' structures to a queue/list, and then dequeue them when GetQueuedCompletionStatusEx returns, but shouldn't that make some bottleneck, since the enqueue/dequeue process of such MyIoRequest structures must be interlocked? Maybe I've misunderstood how to use the IOCP loop. Can someone bring some light on this topic?
The way I normally shut down an IOCP thread is to post my own 'shut down now please' completion. That way you can cleanly shut down and process all of the pending completions and then shut the threads down.
The way to do this is to call PostQueuedCompletionStatus() with 0 for num bytes, completion key and pOverlapped. This will mean that the completion key is a unique value (you wont have a valid file or socket with a zero handle/completion key).
Step one is to close the sources of completions, so close or abort your socket connections, close files, etc. Once all of those are closed you can't be generating any more completion packets so you then post your special '0' completion; post one for each thread you have servicing your IOCP. Once the thread gets a '0' completion key it exits.
If you are terminating the app, and there's no overriding reason to not do so, (eg. close DB connections, interprocess shared memory issues), call ExitProcess(0).
Failing that, call CancelIO() for all socket handles and process all the cancelled completions as they come in.
Try ExitProcess() first!
According to MSDN:
The WaitForSingleObject function can wait for the following objects:
Change notification
Console input
Event
Memory resource notification
Mutex
Process
Semaphore
Thread
Waitable timer
Then we can use WaitForSingleObject to make the parent-thread wait for child ones.
int main()
{
HANDLE h_child_thread = CreateThread(0,0, child, 0,0,0); //create a thread in VC
WaitForSingleObject(h_child_thread, INFINITE); //So, parent-thread will wait
return 0;
}
Question
Is there any other way to make parent-thread wait for child ones in VC or Windows?
I don't quite understand the usage of WaitForSingleObject here, does it mean that the thread's handle will be available when the thread terminates?
You can establish communication between threads in multiple ways and the terminating thread may somehow signal its waiting thread. It could be as simple as writing some special value to a shared memory location that the waiting thread can check. But this won't guarantee that the terminating thread has terminated when the waiting thread sees the special value (ordering/race conditions) or that the terminating thread terminates shortly after that (it can just hang or block on something) and it won't guarantee that the special value gets ever set before the terminating thread actually terminates (the thread can crash). WaitForSingleObject (and its companion WaitForMultipleObjects) is a sure way to know of a thread termination when it occurs. Just use it.
The handle will still be available in the sense that its value won't be gone. But it is practically useless after the thread has terminated, except you need this handle to get the thread exit code. And you still need to close the handle in the end. That is unless you're OK with handle/memory leaks.
for the first queation - yes. The method commonly used here is "Join". the usage is language dependant.
In .NET C++ you can use the Thread's Join method. this is from the msdn:
Thread* newThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(0, Test::Work));
newThread->Start();
if(newThread->Join(waitTime + waitTime))
{
Console::WriteLine(S"New thread terminated.");
}
else
{
Console::WriteLine(S"Join timed out.");
}
Secondly, the thread is terminated when when you are signaled with "WaitForSingleObject" but the handle is still valid (for a terminated thread). So you still need to explicitly close the handle with CloseHandle.
Using MS Visual Studio 2008 C++ for Windows 32 (XP brand), I try to construct a POP3 client managed from a modeless dialog box.
Te first step is create a persistent object -say pop3- with all that Boost.asio stuff to do asynchronous connections, in the WM_INITDIALOG message of the dialog-box-procedure. Some like:
case WM_INITDIALOG:
return (iniPop3Dlg (hDlg, lParam));
Here we assume that iniPop3Dlg() create the pop3 heap object -say pointed out by pop3p-. Then connect with the remote server, and a session is initiated with the client’s id and password (USER and PASS commands). Here we assume that the server is in TRANSACTION state.
Then, in response to some user input, the dialog-box-procedure, call the appropriate function. Say:
case IDS_TOTAL: // get how many emails in the server
total (pop3p);
return FALSE;
case IDS_DETAIL: // get date, sender and subject for each email in the server
detail (pop3p);
return FALSE;
Note that total() uses the POP3’s STAT command to get how many emails in the server, while detail() uses two commands consecutively; first STAT to get the total and then a loop with the GET command to retrieve the content of each message.
As an aside: detail() and total() share the same subroutines -the STAT handle routine-, and when finished, both leaves the session as-is. That is, without closing the connection; the socket remains opened an the server in TRANSACTION state.
When any option is selected by the first time, the things run as expected, obtaining the desired results. But when making the second chance, the connection hangs.
A closer inspection show that the first time that the statement
socket_.get_io_service().run();
Is used, never ends.
Note that all asynchronous write and read routines uses the same io_service, and each routine uses socket_.get_io_service().reset() prior to any run()
Not also that all R/W operations also uses the same timer, who is reseted to zero wait after each operation is completed:
dTimer_.expires_from_now (boost::posix_time::seconds(0));
I suspect that the problem is in the io_service or in the timer, and the fact that subsequent executions occurs in a different load of the routine.
As a first approach to my problem, I hope that someone would bring some light in it, prior to a more detailed exposition of the -very few and simple- routines involved.
Have you looked at the asio examples and studied them? There are several asynchronous examples that should help you understand the basic control flow. Pay particular importance to the main event loop started by invoking io_service::run, it's important to understand control is not expected to return to the caller until the io_service has no more remaining work to do.
I am currently using CreateProcess/WaitForSingleObject from within a win32 GUI app to launch a small GUI app that deals with software licensing issues. This all works fine, but it essentially hangs the "parent" app while it waits for the licensing app to finish its work. During this time, updates to the parent app do not occur and it ends up with ugly white squares if the utility app window is moved.
Also, for some strange reason, while the utility app is running, if I copy something from within that app to the clipboard, it HANGS. I haven't figured out why yet, but it only happens if I am waiting for the app to finish from within the parent app.
So I'm thinking that if I can cause the parent app to handle its events while waiting for my other app to finish, it might solve both problems.
So, is there a replacement for CreateProcess/WaitForSingleObject that also handles UI updates?
Your parent process appears to hang because the WaitForSingleObject() call blocks your thread until the handle you pass into the call is signaled.
Your child process likely hangs during the copy-to-clipboard operation because it is, as a part of that operation, sending a message either specifically to the parent process's window or to all top-level windows. The message loop in your parent process's thread is not running, because it is blocked waiting until the child process exits, so the message is never processed and the child process remains blocked.
Instead of calling WaitForSingleObject(), you can call MsgWaitForMultipleObjects(). If you specifiy QS_ALLINPUT for the dwWaitMask parameter, MsgWaitForMultipleObjects will return either when your event is signaled or when there is input in the thread's message queue. If MsgWaitForMultipleObjects() returned because a message is available, you can process it and resume waiting:
MSG msg;
DWORD reason = WAIT_TIMEOUT;
while (WAIT_OBJECT_0 != reason) {
reason = MsgWaitForMultipleObjects(1, &hChildProcess, FALSE, INFINITE, QS_ALLINPUT);
switch (reason) {
case WAIT_OBJECT_0:
// Your child process is finished.
break;
case (WAIT_OBJECT_0 + 1):
// A message is available in the message queue.
if (PeekMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE)) {
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
// Note that if your main message loop does additional processing
// (such as calling IsDialogMessage() for modeless dialogs)
// you will want to do those things here, too.
}
break;
}
}
You could put the WaitForSingleObject call in a loop and use a relatively small value for the dwMilliseconds parameter.
The condition to exit the loop is when the WaitForSingleObject call returns WAIT_OBJECT_0.
In the loop you have to examine the message queue to see if there are any that you must process. How you handle this is really up to you an it depends on your typical needs.
// Assuming hYourWaitHandle is the handle that you're waiting on
// and hwnd is your window's handle, msg is a MSG variable and
// result is a DWORD variable
//
// Give the process 33 ms (you can use a different value here depending on
// how responsive you wish your app to be)
while((result = WaitForSingleObject(hYourWaitHAndle, 33)) == WAIT_TIMEOUT)
{
// if after 33 ms the object's handle is not signaled..
// we examine the message queue and if ther eare any waiting..
// Note: see PeekMessage documentation for details on how to limit
// the types of messages to look for
while(PeekMessage(&msg, hwnd, 0, 0, PM_NOREMOVE))
{
// we process them..
if(GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0) > 0)
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
}
}
// if you're here it means WaitForSingleObject returned WAIT_OBJECT_0, so you're done
// (but you should always check and make sure it really is WAIT_OBJECT_0)
if(result != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
// This should not be.. so react!
}
I suggest you can handle this as follows:
Parent application does CreateProcess, and then returns immediately instead of waiting for a response or for the utility app to finish
Because the parent applicatin has returned, it can handle other Window messages (e.g. WM_PAINT)
When the utility app finishes, it notifies the parent application (e.g. using PostMessage and RegisterWindowMessage APIs)
Parent application handles positive notification received via PostMessage
Parent application may also have a Windows timer (WM_TIMER) running, so that it knows if the utility app is killed before it send its notification
You can get a hanging problem if the app you are spawning causes a sendmessage broadcast, either explicit or implicit. This is clipped from my website:
The problem arises because your application has a window but isn't pumping messages. If the spawned application invokes SendMessage with one of the broadcast targets (HWND_BROADCAST or HWND_TOPMOST), then the SendMessage won't return to the new application until all applications have handled the message - but your app can't handle the message because it isn't pumping messages.... so the new app locks up, so your wait never succeeds.... DEADLOCK.
I don't do clipboard code, but if that causes the situation above (believeable), then you'll deadlock. You can:
put the launch of the secondary application into a little thread
use a timeout and spin around a PeekMessage loop (yuck)
use the MsgWaitForMultipleObjects API.
No preference is implied by that ordering... I'm assuming you don't create the spawned application yourself, in which case you could use IPC to get around this issue, as ChrisW suggested.
You should create a thread that does only the following:
call CreateProcess() to run the other app
call WaitForSingleObject() to wait for the process to finish - since this is a background thread your app will not block
call CloseHandle() on the process handle
call PostMessage() with a notification message for your main thread
Now you only need to make sure that your main application has its GUI disabled to prevent reentrancy problems, possible by showing a modal dialog that informs the user that the other app is running and needs to be dealt with first. Make sure that the dialog can not be closed manually, and that it closes itself when it receives the posted notification message from the background thread. You can put the whole thread creation into this dialog as well, and wrap everything in a single function that creates, shows and destroys the dialog and returns the result your external application produces.