This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Initialize IO_STATUS_BLOCK for pread, pwrite


On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec  1 10:30, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec  1 00:44, Mark Geisert wrote:
[...]
I'd better take this info back to "the lab" and do some more digging. Thanks
very much for these details and your earlier replies.  When I saw
FILE_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT in your reply, I remembered that I'm not using
a Cygwin-supplied handle but rather a handle returned by Win32 CreateFile().
Not only that, but using cygwin_attach_handle_to_fd() to get an fd to work
with.

Ouch.

And then pwrite() creates its own handle (or reuses one (!)) to avoid
messing up the seek pointer of the fd passed in.

Wait.  Not "re-use", but "re-open".  If you're more familiar with POSIX
terms, this is along the lines of the fdopen(3) call, just on the NT
API level.  There's an equivalent Win32 function since Windows 2003
called ReOpenFile.

In terms of pread/pwrite, the new handle shares the same settings with
the original handle.  However, if you use cygwin_attach_handle_to_fd,
there's a chance information got lost.  Nobody actually uses this call ;)

In terms of FILE_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT, this is stored in
fhandler_base::options, utilizing the get_options/set_options methods.
I have a hunch that cygwin_attach_handle_to_fd fails to call set_options,
thus options is 0 when you call pwrite, thus the new handle is opened
without FILE_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT and all the other option flags
we use by default.

It's more than a hunch.  Of course the info gets lost since
none of the functions called by cygwin_attach_handle_to_fd calls
NtQueryInformationFile(FileModeInformation) to fetch the options.

Bang. There it is. Let me fix the offending program to just use Cygwin-supplied handles and make sure this bug of mine is squashed. I'll report back but it might be a few days.

I'm open to using overlapped I/O for the usual read & write cases of aio but there are some extensions I have in mind that don't allow for overlapped so I think I need to have threads handle them. I might combine the two. Using overlapped for the common case would, I think, allow me to reduce the number of worker threads hanging around. Thanks for the input!

..mark


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]