Re: does IO.read block?

On 17.03.2009 00:03, Michael Malone wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 16.03.2009 21:00, Michael Malone wrote:
>>>> One problem that could hit you is that you might not get the 
>>>> concurrency right: you need to make sure that stderr and stdout are 
>>>> read concurrently (if there can be output on both) because if the 
>>>> pipe on one of them fills up your child process is blocked.  Maybe 
>>>> your issue lies in that area.
>>>>
>>> I have set STDOUT.sync = true  Is that enough?
>> No, definitively not!  This covers the *sending* side but the locking 
>> issue I described is caused by the receiving side not reading all the 
>> data.  Assume an application as a child process that frequently writes 
>> to stdout and stderr.  The parent process at the other end of those 
>> two (!) pipes only reads the stdout pipe.  Now what happens is this: 
>> once the pipe's buffer (OS and configuration dependent, often 4k) 
>> fills up the write call blocks and the child hangs - indefinitely.
>>
>>>  It should be, because I don't have any output originating from the 
>>> child processes or any child threads, only the parent/calling 
>>> thread.  But I've been wrong before...
>>>
>>> Though I think I have narrowed the problem _very_ slightly.  The 
>>> thread/process pair that blocks indefinitely blocks on the 
>>> read_end.read() call.  Which is weird and annoying.
>> And you are sure you close stdout in the client or the client terminates?
>         pw = IO::pipe
>         pr = IO::pipe
>         pe = IO::pipe
>         read_end,write_end = IO.pipe

Why do you open four pipes when three are sufficient?

>         pid = fork() do
>            begin
>               pw[1].close
>               STDIN.reopen(pw[0])
>               pw[0].close
> 
>               pr[0].close
>               STDOUT.reopen(pr[1])
>               pr[1].close
> 
>               pe[0].close
>               STDERR.reopen(pe[1])
>               pe[1].close
> 
> That's the code I used to make sure STDOUT, STDIN and STDERR weren't 
> causing full buffer hangs.

This code by no means does something about buffer hangs.  You just make 
sure that stdin, stdout and stderr are redirected to pipes.

Btw, do you also close other ends in the parent?

>  I borrowed it from a process detach method 
> elsewhere, so it might not be exactly what I want.  However, it had no 
> effect.  The problem still exists.

I do not know whether you plan to exec your forked process but if so you 
can make your life much easier by using Open3.  Then you can do

# from memory
require 'open3'
Open3.popen "cmd args" do |in,out,err|
   out.puts "foo"
end

> Righto, here's the deal:  Either the fork call doesn't work (but doesn't 
> fail either -> a valid pid is returned)
> if I do a puts either side of the fork() (with and without the STDOUT 
> re-direction) then on the process that blocks, the puts just inside the 
> fork() doesn't run.  This indicates that the fork() call fails, however 
> it doesn't return nil like the docs say. 

I am not sure I can follow your logic.  Failure of fork can be 
recognized by an exception (in the unlikely case that your OS cannot 
manage more processes or won't allow you to have another one).

I have to agree that your reasoning is not fully clear to me.  Using 
output operations to determine failure or success of a fork call seems 
to be using the wrong tool for the job.

> An interesting effect I noticed, is if I remove my call to 
> Process.wait(pid) then it displays almost identical behaviour!  It runs 
> perfectly some times, and occasionally just hangs.  However, if I'm not 
> collecting child processes, then I would expect to hit my ulimit at the 
> same place every time and for the fork() call to fail noisily.  The docs 
> don't mention anything on this.  Is it possible that my child processes 
> aren't being collected correctly, thus the rlimit is being hit, but Ruby 
> *believes* the process is collected, so its internal rlimit is not 
> reached, so it calls fork() regardless?

Could just mean that you create new processes faster than old ones are 
closed.

>  Is that at all sane?  Though 
> presumably, the external fork() call *would* fail, causing the internal 
> call to fail.  And yes, I'm speaking as if the two are different, but 
> they might not be.  I suppose it doesn't really make sense to duplicate 
> it.  In fact, the call directly after the block passed to fork() doesn't 
> execute.  Is it possible that my Thread is hanging on the fork() call?  
> What would that indicate?  How could I fix it?

I'd rather ask: what is the problem you are trying to solve?  I still 
lack the big picture - we're talking about details here all the time but 
it's difficult to stay on track when the context is missing.

Cheers

	robert