X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C8DC83857828
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1630143722;
	bh=1JjIPuJnZgtyN8gt9fSSeG5AcuQiPuca4xd2ZpthvAo=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=v1bwJhtPFWkidtDZAtopZa2GRLnw5XxKad0lnKbicDAxOWlJyKqoT52e4dkBM1l9H
	iUDUikMjAkW0uz/R9G9cSVwlmamebvIG2qdB9F19Th1ujNOWIZz6eN8H7YsAVxslrf
	4dEm7MXiVn7WE3jsIBhvfOw76yYhYtv5y/srbS4I=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8B0403858435
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com 17S9f141001271
X-Nifty-SrcIP:	[110.4.221.123]
Date:	Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:41:02 +0900
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygrunsrv + sshd + rsync = 20 times too slow -- throttled?
Message-Id:	<20210828184102.f2206a8a9e5fe5cf24bf5e45@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To:	<YSn3L0W1M527utK0@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<41A583E1-C8E7-42AB-9F24-EEC33A41EC60 AT house DOT org>
	<20210825201845 DOT 07b6400b79dc5558a7761efe AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<f8106fe7-a2b8-d106-3061-4d888124f4b0 AT cornell DOT edu>
	<20210826062934 DOT 54f2f2216021c095bb7ba13b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<d0a8c57d-1ed1-6b4f-c6e7-cbe0e2ec8a1c AT cornell DOT edu>
	<3b560051-ab27-f392-ca4b-d1fd9b5733b0 AT cornell DOT edu>
	<20210827202440 DOT 47706fc2fc07c5e9a1bc0047 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<4f2cb5f3-ce9c-c617-f65f-841a5eca096e AT cornell DOT edu>
	<20210828022111 DOT 91ef5b4ff24f6da9fadb489e AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<YSn3L0W1M527utK0 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:43:27 +0200
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 28 02:21, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:00:50 -0400
> > Ken Brown wrote:
> > > Two years ago I thought I needed nt_create to avoid problems when calling 
> > > set_pipe_non_blocking.  Are you saying that's not an issue?  Is 
> > > set_pipe_non_blocking unnecessary?  Is that the point of your modification to 
> > > raw_read?
> > 
> > Yes. Instead of making windows read function itself non-blocking,
> > it is possible to check if the pipe can be read before read using
> > PeekNamedPipe(). If the pipe cannot be read right now, EAGAIN is
> > returned.
> 
> The problem is this:
> 
>   if (PeekNamedPipe())
>     ReadFile(blocking);
> 
> is not atomic.  I. e., if PeekNamedPipe succeeds, nothing keeps another
> thread from draining the pipe between the PeekNamedPipe and the ReadFile
> call.  And as soon as ReadFile runs, it hangs indefinitely and we can't
> stop it via a signal.

Hmm, you are right. Mutex guard seems to be necessary like pty code
if we go this way.

> Is a blocking ReadFile actually faster than a non-blocking read?  Or
> does it mainly depend on BYTE vs. MESSAGE mode?

Actually, I don't think so. Perhaps it is not essential problem of
overlapped I/O but something is wrong with current pipe code.

> What if the pipe is created non-blocking and stays non-blocking all the
> time and uses BYTE mode all the time?  Just as sockets, it would always
> only emulate blocking mode.  Wouldn't that drop code size a lot and fix
> most problems?

If 'non-blocking' means overlapped I/O, only the problem will be:
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2021-March/247987.html


-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -