I am trying to clear up an issue that occurs with unflushed file I/O buffers in a couple of programs, in different languages, running on Linux. The solution of flushing buffers is easy enough, but this issue of unflushed buffers happens quite randomly. Rather than seek help on what may cause it, I am interested in how to create (reproduce) and diagnose this kind of situation.
This leads to a two-part question:
Is it feasible to artificially and easily construct instances where, for a given period of time, one can have output buffers that are known to be unflushed? My searches are turning up empty. A trivial baseline is to hammer the hard drive (e.g. swapping) in one process while trying to write a large amount of data from another process. While this "works", it makes the system practically unusable: I can't poke around and see what's going on.
Are there commands from within Linux that can identify that a given process has unflushed file output buffers? Is this something that can be run at the command line, or is it necessary to query the kernel directly? I have been looking at fsync, sync, ioctl, flush, bdflush, and others. However, lacking a method for creating unflushed buffers, it's not clear what these may reveal.
In order to reproduce for others, an example for #1 in C would be excellent, but the question is truly language agnostic - just knowing an approach to create this situation would help in the other languages I'm working in.
Update 1: My apologies for any confusion. As several people have pointed out, buffers can be in the kernel space or the user space. This helped pinpoint the problems: we're creating big dirty kernel buffers. This distinction and the answers completely resolve #1: it now seems clear how to re-create unflushed buffers in either user space or kernel space. Identifying which process ID has dirty kernel buffers is not yet clear, though.
If you are interested in the kernel-buffered data, then you can tune the VM writeback through the sysctls in /proc/sys/vm/dirty_*. In particular, dirty_expire_centisecs is the age, in hundredths of a second, at which dirty data becomes eligible for writeback. Increasing this value will give you a larger window of time in which to do your investigation. You can also increase dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio (which are percentages of system memory, defining the point at which synchronous and asynchronous writeback start respectively).
Actually creating dirty pages is easy - just write(2) to a file and exit without syncing, or dirty some pages in a MAP_SHARED mapping of a file.
A simple program that would have an unflushed buffer would be:
main()
{
printf("moo");
pause();
}
Stdio, by default only flushes stdout on newlines, when connected to a terminal.
It is very easy to cause unflushed buffers by controlling the receiving side. The beauty of *nix systems is that everything looks like a file, so you can use special files to do what you want. The easiest option is a pipe. If you just want to control stdout, this is the simples option: unflushed_program | slow_consumer. Otherwise, you can use named pipes:
mkfifo pipe_file
unflushed_program --output pipe_file
slow_consumer --input pipe_file
slow_consumer is most likely a program you design to read data slowly, or just read X bytes and stop.
Related
I created a program that monitors for events.
I want to log these events "in the right way".
Currently I have a string array, log[500][100].
Each line is a string of characters (up to 100) that report something about the event.
I have it set up so that only the last 500 events are saved in the array.
After that, new events overwrite the oldest events.
Currently I just keep revolving through the array until the program terminates, then I write the array to a file.
Going forward I would like to view the log in real time, any time I wish, without disturbing the event processing and logging process.
I considered opening the file for "appending" but here are my concerns:
(1) The program is running on a Raspberry Pi which has a flash memory as a "disk drive". I believe flash memories have a limited number of write cycles before problems can occur. This program runs 24/7 "forever" so I am afraid the "disk drive" will "wear out".
(2) I am using pretty much all the CPU capacity of the RPi so I don't want to add a lot of overhead/CPU cycles.
How would experienced programmers attack this problem?
Please go easy on me, this is my first C program.
[EDIT]
I began reviewing all the information and I became intrigued by Mark A's suggestion for tmpfs. I looked into it more and I am sure this answers my question. It allows the creation of files in RAM not the SD card. They are lost on power down but I don't care.
In order to keep the files from growing to large I created a double buffer approach. First I write 500 events to file A then switch to file B. When 500 events have been written to file B I close and reopen file A (to delete the contents and start at 0 events) and switch to writing to file A. I found I needed to fflush(file...) after each write or else the file was empty until fclose.
Normally that would be OK but right now I am fighting a nasty segmentation fault so I want as much insight into what is going on. When I hit the fault, I never get to my fclose statements.
Welcome to Stack Overflow and to C programming! A wonderful world of possibilities awaits you.
I have several thoughts in response to your situation.
The very short summary is to use stdout and delegate the output-file management to the shell.
The longer, rambling answer full of my personal musing is as follows:
1 : A very typical thing for C programs to do is not be in charge of how outputs are kept. You might have heard of the "built in" file handles, stdin, stdout, and stderr. These file handles are (under normal circumstances) always available to your program for input (from stdin) and output (stdout and stderr). As you might guess from their names stdout is customarily used for regular output and stderr is customarily used for error / exception output. It is exceedingly typical for a C program to simply read from stdin and output to stdout and stderr, and let something else (e.g., the shell) take care of what those actually are.
For example, reading from stdin means that your program can be used for keyboard entry and for file reading, without needing to change your program's code. The same goes for stdout and stderr; simply output to those file handles, and let the user decide whether those should go to the screen or be redirected to a file. And, because stdout and stderr are separate file handles, the user can have them go to separate 'destinations'.
In your case, to implement this, drop the array entirely, and simply
fprintf(stdout, "event notice : %s\n", eventdetailstring);
(or similar) every time your program has something to say. Take a look at fflush(), too, because of potential output buffering.
2a : This gets you continuous output. This itself can help with your concern about memory wear on the Pi's flash disk. If you do something like:
eventmonitor > logfile
then logfile will be being appended to during the lifetime of your program, which will tend to be writing to new parts of the flash disk. Of course, if you only ever append, you will eventually run out of space on the disk, so you might set up a cron job to kill the currently running eventmonitor and restart it every day at midnight. Done with the above command, that would cause it to overwrite logfile once per day. This prevents endless growth, and it might even use a new physical area of the flash drive for the new file (even though it's the same name; underneath, it's a different file, with a different inode, etc.) But even if it reuses the exact same area of the flash drive, now you are down to worrying if this will last more than 10,000 days, instead of 10,000 writes. I'm betting that within 10,000 days, new options will be available -- worst case, you buy a new Pi every 27 years or so!
There are other possible variations on this theme, as well. e.g., you could have a sophisticated script kicked off by cron every day at midnight that kills any currently running eventmonitor, deletes output files older than a week, and starts a new eventmonitor outputting to a file whose filename is based partly on the date so that past days' file aren't overwritten. But all of this is in the realm of using your program. You can make your program easier to use by writing it to use stdin, stdout, and stderr.
2b : Or, you can just have stdout go to the screen, which is typically how it already is when a program is started from an interactive shell / terminal window. I imagine you could have the Pi running headless most of the time, and when you want to see what your program is outputting, hook up a monitor. Generally, things will stay running between disconnecting and reconnecting your monitor. This avoids affecting the flash drive at all.
3 : Another approach is to have your event monitoring program send its output somewhere off-system. This is getting into more advanced programming territory, so you might want to save this for a later enhancement, after you've mastered more of the basics. But, your program could establish a network connection to, say, a JSON API and send event information there. This would let you separate the functions of event monitoring from event reporting.
You will discover as you learn more programming that this idea of separation of concerns is an important concept, and applies at various levels of a program or a system of interoperating programs. In this case, the Pi is a good fit for the data monitoring aspect because it is a lightweight solution, and some other system with more capacity and more stable storage can cover the data collection aspect.
I'm designing a program I plan to implement in C and I have a question about the best way (in terms of performance) to call external programs. The user is going to provide my program with a filename, and then my program is going to run another program with that file as input. My program is then going to process the output of the other program.
My typical approach would be to redirect the other program's output to a file and then have my program read that file when it's done. However, I understand I/O operations are quite expensive and I would like to make this program as efficient as possible.
I did a little bit of looking and I found the popen command for running system commands and grabbing the output. How does the performance of this approach compare to the performance of the approach I just described? Does popen simply write the external program's output to a temporary file, or does it keep the program output in memory?
Alternatively, is there another way to do this that will give better performance?
On Unix systems, popen will pass data through an in-memory pipe. Assuming the data isn't swapped out, it won't hit disk. This should give you just about as good performance as you can get without modifying the program being invoked.
popen does pretty much what you are asking for: it does the pipe-fork-exec idiom and gives you a file pointer that you can read and write from.
However, there is a limitation on the size of the pipe buffer (~4K iirc), and if you arent reading quickly enough, the other process could block.
Do you have access to shared memory as a mount point? [on linux systems there is a /dev/shm mountpoint]
1) popen keep the program output in memory. It actually uses pipes to transfer data between the processes.
2) popen looks IMHO as the best option for performance.
It also have an advantage over files of reducing latency. I.e. your program will be able to get the other program output on the fly, while it is produced. If this output is large, then you don't have to wait until the other program is finished to start processing its output.
The problem with having your subcommand redirect to a file is that it's potentially insecure while popen communication can't be intercepted by another process. Plus you need to make sure the filename is unique if you're running several instances of your master program (and thus of your subcommand). The popen solution doesn't suffer from this.
The performance of popen is just fine as long as your don't read/write one byte chunks. Always read/write multiples of 512 (like 4096). But that does apply to file operations as well. popen connects your process and the child process through pipes, so if you don't read then the pipe fills up and the child can't write and vice versa. So all the exchanged data is in memory, but it's only small amounts.
(Assuming Unix or Linux)
Writing to the temp file may be slow if the file is on a slow disk. It also means the entire output will have to fit on the disk.
popen connects to the other program using a pipe, which means that output will be sent to your program incrementally. As it is generated, it is copied to your program chunk-by-chunk.
I'm reading from /proc/pid/task/stat to keep track of cpu usage in a thread.
fopen on /proc/pic/task/stat
fget a string from the stream
sscanf on the string
I am having issues however getting the streams buffer to update.
If I fget 1024 characters if regreshes but if I fget 128 characters then it never updates and I always get the same stats.
I rewind the stream before the read and have tried fsync.
I do this very frequently so I'd rather not reopen to file each time.
What is the right way to do this?
Not every program benefits from the use of buffered I/O.
In your case, I think I would just use read(2)1. This way, you:
eliminate all stale buffer2 issues
probably run faster via the elimination of double buffering
probably use less memory
definitely simplify the implementation
For a case like you describe, the efficiency gain may not matter on today's remarkably powerful CPUs. But I will point out that programs like cp(2) and other heavy-duty data movers don't use buffered I/O packages.
1. That is, open(2), read(2), lseek(2), and close(2).
2. And perhaps to intercept an argument, on questions related to this one someone usually offers a "helpful" suggestion along the lines of fflush(stdin), and then another someone comes along to accurately point out that fflush() is defined by C99 on output streams only, and that it's usually unwise to depend on implementation-specific behavior.
I am working on an application which does sequentially write a large file (and does not read at all), and I would like to use posix_fadvise() to optimize the filesystem behavior.
The function description in the manpage suggests that the most appropriate strategy would be POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL. However, the Linux implementation description doubts that:
Under Linux, POSIX_FADV_NORMAL sets the readahead window to the default size for the backing device; POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL doubles this size, and POSIX_FADV_RANDOM disables file readahead entirely.
As I'm only writing data (overwriting files possibly too), I don't expect any readahead. Should I then stick with my POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL or rather use POSIX_FADV_RANDOM to disable it?
How about other options, such as POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE? Or maybe do not use posix_fadvise() for writing at all?
Most of the posix_fadvise() flags (eg POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL and POSIX_FADV_RANDOM) are hints about readahead rather than writing.
There's some advice from Linus here and here about getting good sequential write performance. The idea is to break the file into large-ish (8MB) windows, then loop around doing:
Write out window N with write();
Request asynchronous write-out of window N with sync_file_range(..., SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE)
Wait for the write-out of window N-1 to complete with sync_file_range(..., SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE | SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE | SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER)
Drop window N-1 from the pagecache with posix_fadvise(..., POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)
This way you never have more than two windows worth of data in the page cache, but you still get the kernel writing out part of the pagecache to disk while you fill the next part.
It all depends on the temporal locality of your data. If your application won't need the data soon after it was written, then you can go with POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE to avoid writing to the buffer cache (in a similar way as the O_DIRECT flag from open()).
As far as writes go I think that you can just rely on the OSes disk IO scheduler to do the right thing.
You should keep in mind that while posix_fadvise is there specifically to give the kernel hints about future file usage patterns the kernel also has other data to help it out.
If you don't open the file for reading then it would only need to read blocks in when they were partially written. If you were to truncate the file to 0 then it doesn't even have to do that (you said that you were overwriting).
I have a small C program to calculate hashes (for hash tables). The code looks quite clean I hope, but there's something unrelated to it that's bugging me.
I can easily generate about one million hashes in about 0.2-0.3 seconds (benchmarked with /usr/bin/time). However, when I'm printf()inging them in the for loop, the program slows down to about 5 seconds.
Why is this?
How to make it faster? mmapp()ing stdout maybe?
How is stdlibc designed in regards to this, and how may it be improved?
How could the kernel support it better? How would it need to be modified to make the throughput on local "files" (sockets,pipes,etc) REALLY fast?
I'm looking forward for interesting and detailed replies. Thanks.
PS: this is for a compiler construction toolset, so don't by shy to get into details. While that has nothing to do with the problem itself, I just wanted to point out that details interest me.
Addendum
I'm looking for more programatic approaches for solutions and explanations. Indeed, piping does the job, but I don't have control over what the "user" does.
Of course, I'm doing a testing right now, which wouldn't be done by "normal users". BUT that doesn't change the fact that a simple printf() slows down a process, which is the problem I'm trying to find an optimal programmatic solution for.
Addendum - Astonishing results
The reference time is for plain printf() calls inside a TTY and takes about 4 mins 20 secs.
Testing under a /dev/pts (e.g. Konsole) speeds up the output to about 5 seconds.
It takes about the same amount of time when using setbuffer() in my testing code to a size of 16384, almost the same for 8192: about 6 seconds.
setbuffer() has apparently no effect when using it: it takes the same amount of time (on a TTY about 4 mins, on a PTS about 5 seconds).
The astonishing thing is, if I'm starting the test on TTY1 and then switch to another TTY, it does take just the same as on a PTS: about 5 seconds.
Conclusion: the kernel does something which has to do with accessibility and user friendliness. HUH!
Normally, it should be equally slow no matter if you stare at the TTY while its active, or you switch over to another TTY.
Lesson: when running output-intensive programs, switch to another TTY!
Unbuffered output is very slow.
By default stdout is fully-buffered, however when attached to terminal, stdout is either unbuffered or line-buffered.
Try to switch on buffering for stdout using setvbuf(), like this:
char buffer[8192];
setvbuf(stdout, buffer, _IOFBF, sizeof(buffer));
You could store your strings in a buffer and output them to a file (or console) at the end or periodically, when your buffer is full.
If outputting to a console, scrolling is usually a killer.
If you are printf()ing to the console it's usually extremely slow. I'm not sure why but I believe it doesn't return until the console graphically shows the outputted string. Additionally you can't mmap() to stdout.
Writing to a file should be much faster (but still orders of magnitude slower than computing a hash, all I/O is slow).
You can try to redirect output in shell from console to a file. Using this, logs with gigabytes in size can be created in just seconds.
I/O is always slow in comparison to
straight computation. The system has
to wait for more components to be
available in order to use them. It
then has to wait for the response
before it can carry on. Conversely
if it's simply computing, then it's
only really moving data between the
RAM and CPU registers.
I've not tested this, but it may be quicker to append your hashes onto a string, and then just print the string at the end. Although if you're using C, not C++, this may prove to be a pain!
3 and 4 are beyond me I'm afraid.
As I/O is always much slower than CPU computation, you might store all values in fastest possible I/O first. So use RAM if you have enough, use Files if not, but it is much slower than RAM.
Printing out the values can now be done afterwards or in parallel by another thread. So the calculation thread(s) may not need to wait until printf has returned.
I discovered long ago using this technique something that should have been obvious.
Not only is I/O slow, especially to the console, but formatting decimal numbers is not fast either. If you can put the numbers in binary into big buffers, and write those to a file, you'll find it's a lot faster.
Besides, who's going to read them? There's no point printing them all in a human-readable format if nobody needs to read all of them.
Why not create the strings on demand rather that at the point of construction? There is no point in outputting 40 screens of data in one second how can you possibly read it? Why not create the output as required and just display the last screen full and then as required it the user scrolls???
Why not use sprintf to print to a string and then build a concatenated string of all the results in memory and print at the end?
By switching to sprintf you can clearly see how much time is spent in the format conversion and how much is spent displaying the result to the console and change the code appropriately.
Console output is by definition slow, creating a hash is only manipulating a few bytes of memory. Console output needs to go through many layers of the operating system, which will have code to handle thread/process locking etc. once it eventually gets to the display driver which maybe a 9600 baud device! or large bitmap display, simple functions like scrolling the screen may involve manipulating megabytes of memory.
I guess the terminal type is using some buffered output operations, so when you do a printf it does not happen to output in split micro-seconds, it is stored in the buffer memory of the terminal subsystem.
This could be impacted by other things that could cause a slow down, perhaps there's a memory intensive operation running on it other than your program. In short there's far too many things that could all be happening at the same time, paging, swapping, heavy i/o by another process, configuration of memory utilized, maybe memory upgrade, and so on.
It might be better to concatenate the strings until a certain limit is reached, then when it is, write it all out at once. Or even using pthreads to carry out the desired process execution.
Edited:
As for 2,3 it is beyond me. For 4, I am not familiar with Sun, but do know of and have messed with Solaris, There may be a kernel option to use a virtual tty.. i'll admit its been a while since messing with the kernel configs and recompiling it. As such my memory may not be great on this, have a root around with the options to see.
user#host:/usr/src/linux $ make; make menuconfig **OR kconfig if from X**
This will fire up the kernel menu, have a dig around in to see the video settings section under the devices sub-tree..
Edited:
but there's a tweak you put into the kernel by adding a file into the proc filesystem (if a such thing does exist), or possibly a switch passed into the kernel, something like this (this is imaginative and does not imply it actually exists), fastio
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.