X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EADCE3857438
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1630165481;
	bh=VBWDJAt9E+U/gx/fi96l4lheYLm3b359bhf5Fe+2OiA=;
	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=MveeGbE9BwxqydY7ZY8Wy/cy7WT8AQdmavuse0X+yBpMjMoOxHTleW1SG3Kn3uSUC
	4mBVHdDCaG603L9tOY1E6b71vO1y95yW6AZ5jeAGE5+gbcRvsLQyLQD5QyIkoe2j07
	ApiauFM+sABd+uHMvlKuJnVQCqi3lZJRvqKoed60=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ACF2A3858435
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com 17SFhgYo030934
X-Nifty-SrcIP:	[110.4.221.123]
Date:	Sun, 29 Aug 2021 00:43:46 +0900
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygrunsrv + sshd + rsync = 20 times too slow -- throttled?
Message-Id:	<20210829004346.c2f80469abc3a07fd4b2918d@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To:	<YSok0PoCQn2TPPrn@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<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>
	<20210828184102 DOT f2206a8a9e5fe5cf24bf5e45 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<YSok0PoCQn2TPPrn 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 13:58:08 +0200
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 28 18:41, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I was not talking about overlapped I/O,
> which we should get rid off, but of real non-blocking mode, which
> Windows pipes are fortunately capable of.

Do you mean, PIPE_NOWAIT flag? If this flags is specified in
the read pipe, non-cygwin apps cannot read the pipe correctly.

-- 
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 -