To clarify, I am wondering what are the cons and pros of writing a "multiple simultaneous clients to a single server" using TCP/IP sockets and signal handlers that are called in response to "can read / can write" signal conditions on client socket file descriptors? As far as I understand at least the Linux kernel uses signals to notify a process of conditions related to socket descriptors? Obviously one has to be careful in a signal handler, which, again as I understand, interrupts the process - reentrancy, atomicity, undefined state for variables, etc.
But one does not have to have signals do most work, in fact quite the opposite - add the socket to a set of sockets ready for reading, writing, much like select, poll and epoll_wait do, and let the default process code flow work with these sets? In effect, one emulates much the same pattern as with the functions mentioned, but purely principally, is it doable and how can it be worth it?
There is already a couple of such methods. One is using the SIGIO signal, check man 7 socket and look for the section named "Signals" for more information.
The other method is standardized by POSIX and called async I/O. The functions to use are all prefixed with aio_ (for example aio_read). See this link for an example on how to use this or check the manual page.
Related
I'm looking for some way to get a signal on an I/O completion port when a socket becomes readable/writeable (i.e. the next send/recv will complete immediately). Basically I want an overlapped version of WSASelect.
(Yes, I know that for many applications, this is unnecessary, and you can just keep issuing overlapped send calls. But in other applications you want to delay generating the message to send until the last moment possible, as discussed e.g. here. In these cases it's useful to do (a) wait for socket to be writeable, (b) generate the next message, (c) send the next message.)
So far the best solution I've been able to come up with is to spawn a thread just to call select and then PostQueuedCompletionStatus, which is awful and not particularly scalable... is there any better way?
It turns out that this is possible!
Basically the trick is:
Use the WSAIoctl SIO_BASE_HANDLE to peek through any "layered service providers"
Use DeviceIoControl to submit an AFD_POLL request for the base handle, to the AFD driver (this is what select does internally)
There are many, many complications that are probably worth understanding, but at the end of the day the above should just work in practice. This is supposed to be a private API, but libuv uses it, and MS's compatibility policies mean that they will never break libuv, so you're fine. For details, read the thread starting from this message: https://github.com/python-trio/trio/issues/52#issuecomment-424591743
For detecting that a socket is readable, it turns out that there is an undocumented but well-known piece of folklore: you can issue a "zero byte read", i.e., an overlapped WSARecv with a zero-byte receive buffer, and that will not complete until there is some data to be read. This has been recommended for servers that are trying to do simultaneous reads from a large number of mostly-idle sockets, in order to avoid problems with memory usage (apparently IOCP receive buffers get pinned into RAM). An example of this technique can be seen in the libuv source code. They also have an additional refinement, which is that to use this with UDP sockets, they issue a zero-byte receive with MSG_PEEK set. (This is important because without that flag, the zero-byte receive would consume a packet, truncating it to zero bytes.) MSDN claims that you can't combine MSG_PEEK with overlapped I/O, but apparently it works for them...
Of course, that's only half of an answer, because there's still the question of detecting writability.
It's possible that a similar "zero-byte send" trick would work? (Used directly for TCP, and adding the MSG_PARTIAL flag on UDP sockets, to avoid actually sending a zero-byte packet.) Experimentally I've checked that attempting to do a zero-byte send on a non-writable non-blocking TCP socket returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK, so that's a promising sign, but I haven't tried with overlapped I/O. I'll get around to it eventually and update this answer; or alternatively if someone wants to try it first and post their own consolidated answer then I'll probably accept it :-)
There are 2 processes running on Windows. They communicate with each other through named pipe. When one of them is ready to send a message, I want to notificate the other process asynchronously like signal on Linux so that the other process don't need to check for the pipe continously. Are there some similar methods like the signal mechanism on Windows or other way to solve my problem?
A direct signal mechanism which conceptually works the same way does not exist (one could probably simulate it with a thread injection hack, but don't even think about that). It is not much of a problem, since you can do otherwise.
Every waitable kernel object which can take a name such as an event or a semaphore can be accessed by different processes.
You can WaitForSingleObject on the synchronization primitive until the other process signals it. That would be a Unix-like readiness notification mechanism (not quite as elegant, but to the same effect).
However, that isn't even necessary. Named pipes (not true for anyonymous pipes!) can be used with overlapped I/O. Which means you can use ReadFileEx to initiate a read from the pipe, and it will linger there in the background until it can complete.
You can think of this kind of I/O as "fire and forget". Your process continues running while the read operation is blocked. When the read operation completes, it signals an event or posts a completion message to a completion port (which you can query) or posts an asynchronous procedure call ("APC", a more fancy name for "callback") to the thread that originally called it. That's as close to a "signal" as you can get under Windows.
Unluckily, APCs don't quite work as one would wish, since they only execute at well-defined points (when a thread is in an "alertable wait state", which you must do explicitly by setting the altertable flag in a wait function or calling NtTestAlert).
The likely reasoning why the Windows designers made it that way that this is "safer", but it is also more annoying from an usability point of view. Alas, that is how it works.
Note that the overlapped I/O model is the exact opposite of the readiness notification system under e.g. Linux. Rather than asking the OS whether a descriptor is ready to be read, you tell the OS to read it, and you can have yourself be notified (or verify) whether this has completed.
I want to develop a p2p app which communicates via UDPSockets. I'm just starting to read the docs for that and I couldn't understand that piece of ruby's socket management.
Specifically it's possible to add those "flags", as ruby-doc calls them, to every send call. (http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib-1.9.3/libdoc/socket/rdoc/UDPSocket.html#method-i-send)
But when do I use those and how?
You'll probably know if you need to use them as you'll have an example or some documentation that refers to them.
Some of the more common options used with recvfrom are: MSG_OOB to process out-of-band data, MSG_PEEK to peek at the incoming message without de-queueing it, and MSG_WAITALL to wait for the receive buffer to fill up.
These are really quite edge-case so you probably won't ever see one used.
Those flags come from the low-level recv call on which Socket is based.
On Unix: I’ve been through FAM and Gamin, and both seem to provide a client/server file monitoring system. I would rather have a system where I tell the kernel to monitor some inodes and it pokes me back when events occur. Inotify looked promising at first on that side: inotify_init1 let me pass IN_NONBLOCK which in turn caused poll() to return directly. However I understood that I would have to call it regularly if I wanted to have news about the monitored files. Now I’m a bit short of ideas.
Is there something to monitor files asynchronously?
PS: I haven’t looked on Windows yet, but I would love to have some answers about it too.
As Celada says in the comments above, inotify and poll are the right way to do this.
Signals are not a mechanism for reasonable asynchronous programming -- and signal handlers are remarkably dangerous for the inexperienced and even for the experienced. One does not use them for such purposes voluntarily.
Instead, one should structure one's program around an event loop (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming for an overall explanation) using poll, select, or some similar system call as the core of your program's event handling mechanism.
Alternatively, you can use threads, or threads plus an event loop.
However interesting are you answers, I am sorry but I can’t accept a mechanism based on blocking calls on poll or select, when the question states “asynchronously”, regardless of how deep it is hidden.
On the other hand, I found out that one could manage to run inotify asynchronously by passing to inotify_init1 the flag IN_NONBLOCK. Signals are not triggered as they would have with aio, and a read call that would block blocking would set errno to EWOULDBLOCK instead.
I come from the world of web programming and usually the server sets a superglobal variable through the specified method (get, post, etc) that makes available the data a user inputs into a field. Another way is to use AJAX to register a callback method to an event that the AJAX XMLhttpRequest object will initiate once notified by the browser (I'm assuming...). So I guess my question would be if there is some sort of dispatch interface that a systems programmer's code must interact with vicariously to execute in response to user input or does the programmer control the "waiting" process directly? And if there is a dispatch is there a loop structure in an OS that waits for a particular event to occur?
I was prompted to ask this question here because I'm in a basic programming logic class and the professor won't answer such a "sophisticated" question as this one. My book gives a vague pseudocode example like:
//start
sentinel_val = 'stop';
get user_input;
while (user_input not equal to sentinel_val)
{
// do something.
get user_input;
}
//stop
This example leads me to believe 1) that if no input is received from the user the loop will continue to repeat the sequence "do something" with the old or no input until the new input magically appears and then it will repeat again with that or a null value. It seems the book has tried to use the example of priming and reading from a file to convey how a program would get data from event driven input, no?
I'm confused :(
At the lowest level, input to the computer is asynchronous-- it happens via "interrupts", which is basically something external to the CPU (a keyboard controller) sending a signal to the CPU that says "stop what you're doing and accept this data". (It's complex, but this is the general idea). So the CPU stops, grabs the keystroke, and puts it in a buffer to be read, and then continues doing what it was doing before the interrupt.
Very similar things happen with inbound network traffic, and the results of reading from a disk, etc.
At a higher level, it gets more dependent on the operating system or framework that you're using.
With keyboard input, there might be a process (application, basically) that is blocked, waiting for user input. That "block" doesn't mean the computer just sits there waiting, it lets other processes run instead. But when the keyboard result comes in, it will wake up the one who was waiting for it.
From the point of view of that waiting process, they called some function "get_next_character()" and that function returned with the character. Etc.
Frankly, how all this stuff ties together is super interesting and useful to understand. :)
An OS is driven by hardware event (called interrupt). An OS does not wait for an interrupt, instead, it execute a special instruction to put the CPU a nap in a loop. If a hardware event occurs, the corresponding interrupt will be invoked.
It seems the book has tried to use the example of priming and reading from a file
to convey how a program would get data from event driven input, no?
Yes that is what the book is doing. In fact... the unix operating system is built on the idea of abstracting all input and output of any device to look like this.
In reality most operating systems and hardware make use of interrupts that jump to what we can call a sub-routine to perform the low level data read and then return control back to the operating system.
Also on most systems many of the devices work independent of the rest of the operating system and present a high level API to the operating system. For example a keyboard port (or maybe a better example is a network card) on a computer process interrupts itself and then the keyboard driver presents the operating system with a different api. You can look at standards for devices to see what these are. If you want to know the api the keyboard port presents for example you could look at the source code for the keyboard driver in a linix distro.
A basic explanation based on my understanding...
Your get user_input pseudo function is often something like readLine. That means that the function will block until the data read contains a new line character.
Below this the OS will use interrupts (this means it's not dealing with the keyboard unessesarily, but only when required) to allow it to respond when it the user hits some keys. The keyboard interrupt will cause execution to jump to a special routine which will fill an input buffer with data from the keyboard. The OS will then allow the appropriate process - generally the active one - to use readLine functions to access this data.
There's a bunch more complexity in there but that's a simple view. If someone offers a better explanation I'll willingly bow to superior knowledge.