I've been toying around with libevent2, and I've got reading files working, but it blocks. Is there any way to make file reading not block just within libevent. Or, do I need to use another IO library for files and make it pump events that I need.
fd = open("/tmp/hello_world",O_RDONLY);
evbuffer_read(buf,fd,4096);
The O_NONBLOCK flag doesn't work either.
In POSIX disks are considered "fast devices" meaning that they always block (which is why O_NONBLOCK didn't work for you). Only network sockets can be non-blocking.
There is POSIX AIO, but e.g. on Linux that comes with a bunch of restrictions making it unsuitable for general-purpose usage (only for O_DIRECT, I/O must be sector-aligned).
If you want to integrate normal POSIX IO into an asynchronous event loop it seems people resort to thread pools, where the blocking syscalls are executed in the background by one of the worker threads. One example of such a library is libeio
No.
I've yet to see a *nix where you can do non-blocking i/o on regular files without resorting to the more special AIO library (Though for some, e.g. solaris, O_NONBLOCK has an effect if e.g. someone else holds a lock on the file)
Please take a look at libuv, which is used by node.js / io.js: https://github.com/libuv/libuv
It's a good alternative to libeio, because it does perform well on all major operating systems, from Windows to the BSDs, Mac OS X and of course Linux.
It supports I/O completion ports, which makes it a better choice than libeio if you are targeting Windows.
The C code is also very readable and I highly recommend this tutorial: https://nikhilm.github.io/uvbook/
Related
I'm trying to implement an echo TCP server as a loadable kernel module.
Should I use sock_create, or sock_create_kern?
Should I use accept, or kernel_accept?
I mean it does make sense that I should use kernel_accept for example; but I don't know why. Can't I use normal sockets in the kernel?
The problem is, you are trying to shoehorn an user space application into the kernel.
Sockets (and files and so on) are things the kernel provides to userspace applications via the kernel-userspace API/ABI. Some, but not all, also have an in-kernel callable, for cases when another kernel thingy wishes to use something provided to userspace.
Let's look at the Linux kernel implementation of the socket() or accept() syscalls, in net/socket.c in the kernel sources; look for SYSCALL_DEFINE3(socket, and SYSCALL_DEFINE3(accept,, SYSCALL_DEFINE4(recv,, and so on.
(I recommend you use e.g. Elixir Cross Referencer to find specific identifiers in the Linux kernel sources, then look up the actual code in one of the official kernel Git trees online; that's what I do, anyway.)
Note how pointer arguments have a __user qualifier: this means the data pointed to must reside in user space, and that the functions will eventually use copy_from_user()/copy_to_user() to retrieve or set the data. Furthermore, the operations access the file descriptor table, which is part of the process context: something that normally only exist for userspace processes.
Essentially, this means your kernel module must create an userspace "process" (enough of one to satisfy the requirements of crossing the userspace-kernel boundary when using kernel interfaces) to "hold" the memory and file descriptors, at minimum. It is a lot of work, and in the end, it won't be any more performant than an userspace application would be. (Linux kernel developers have worked on this for literally decades. There are some proprietary operating systems where doing stuff in "kernel space" may be faster, but that is not so in Linux. The cost to do things in userspace is some context switches, and possibly some memory copies (for the transferred data).)
In particular, the TCP/IP and UDP/IP interfaces (see e.g. net/ipv4/udp.c for UDP/IPv4) do not seem to have any interface for kernel-side buffers (other than directly accessing the rx/tx socket buffers, which are in kernel memory).
You have probably heard of TUX web server, a subsystem patch to the Linux kernel by Ingo Molnár. Even that is not a "kernel module server", but more like a subsystem that an userspace process can use to implement a server that runs mostly in kernel space.
The idea of a kernel module that provides a TCP/IP and/or UDP/IP server, is simply like trying to use a hammer to drive in screws. It will work, after a fashion, but the results won't be pretty.
However, for the particular case of an echo server, it just might be possible to bolt it on top of IPv4 (see net/ipv4/) and/or IPv6 (see net/ipv6/) similar to ICMP packets (net/ipv4/icmp.c, net/ipv6/icmp.c). I would consider this route if and only if you intend to specialize in kernel-side networking stuff, as otherwise everything you'd learn doing this is very specialized and not that useful in practice.
If you need to implement something kernel-side for an exercise or something, I'd recommend steering away from "application"-type ideas (services or similar).
Instead, I would warmly recommend developing a character device driver, possibly implementing some kind of inter-process communications layer, preferably bus-style (i.e., one sender, any number of recipients). Something like that has a number of actual real-world use cases (both hardware drivers, as well as stranger things like kdbus-type stuff), so anything you'd learn doing that would be real-world applicable.
(In fact, an echo character device -- which simply outputs whatever is written to it -- is an excellent first target. Although LDD3 is for Linux kernel 2.6.10, it should be an excellent read for anyone diving into Linux kernel development. If you use a more recent kernel, just remember that the example code might not compile as-is, and you might have to do some research wrt. Linux kernel Git repos and/or a kernel source cross referencer like Elixir above.)
In short sockets are just a mechanism that enable two processes to talk, localy or remotely.
If you want to send some data from kernel to userspace you have to use kernel sockets sock_create_kern() with it's family of functions.
What would be the benefit of TCP echo server as kernel module?
It makes sense only if your TCP server provides data which is otherwise not accessible from userspace, e.g. read some post-mortem NVRAM which you can't read normally and to send it to rsyslog via socket.
I am reading a book about network progamming in C. It is from 2004.
In the example code, author is using select C function to accept multiple connections from the client. Is that function deprecated today?
I see that there are different ways to accept multiplexed I/O like poll and epoll. What are the advantages?
It's not deprecated, and lots of programs rely on it.
It's just not the best tool as it has some limitations:
The number of file descriptors is limited (OS specific, usually possible to increase it with kernel recompiling).
Doesn't scale well (with lots of fds): the whole FD set must be maintained, and re-initialized as select manipulates it.
Feel free to use it if these aren't relevant for you. Otherwise use poll/libevent if you're looking for a cross-platform solution, or in some rare-cases epoll/kqueue for platform specific optimized solutions.
It's not deprecated in its behavior, but its design may have performance issues. For example, linux epoll() documentation states:
API can be used either as an edge-triggered or a level-triggered inter‐
face and scales well to large numbers of watched file descriptors.
Since the efficient alternatives are specific to each operating system, an option better than directly using select() is to use a cross platform multiplexing library (which uses the best implementation available), examples being:
libevent
libev
libuv
If you're developing for a specific operating system, use the recommended implementation for high performance applications.
However, since some people don't like current libraries for I/O multiplexing (due to "being ugly"), select is still a viable alternative.
I am dealing with an existing project (in C) that is currently running on a single thread, and we would like to run on multiple platforms AND have multiple threads. Hopefully, there is a library for this, because, IMHO, the Win32 API is like poking yourself in the eye repeatedly. I know about Boost.Thread for C++, but, this must be C (and compilable on MinGW and gcc). Cygwin is not an option, sorry.
Try OpenMP API, it's multi-platform and you can compile it with GCC.
Brief description from the wikipedia:
OpenMP (Open Multi-Processing) is an application programming interface
(API) that supports multi-platform shared memory multiprocessing
programming in C, C++, and Fortran,[3] on most platforms, processor
architectures and operating systems, including Solaris, AIX, HP-UX,
Linux, macOS, and Windows. It consists of a set of compiler
directives, library routines, and environment variables that influence
run-time behavior.
I would use the POSIX thread API - pthread. This article has some hints for implementing it on Windows, and a header-file-only download (BSD license):
http://locklessinc.com/articles/pthreads_on_windows/
Edit: I used the sourceforge pthreads-win32 project in the past for multi-platform threading and it worked really nicely. Things have moved on since then and the above link seems more up-to-date, though I haven't tried it. This answer assumes of course that pthreads are available on your non-Windows targets (for Mac / Linux I should think they are, probably even embedded)
Windows threading has sufficiently different functionality when compared to that of Linux such that perhaps you should consider two different implementations, at least if application performance could be an issue. On the other hand, simply implementing multi-threading may well make your app slower than it was before. Lets assume that performance is an issue and that multi-threading is the best option.
With Windows threads I'm specifically thinking of I/O Completion Ports (IOCPs) which allow implementing I/O-event driven threads that make the most efficient use of the hardware.
Many "classic" applications are constructed along one thread/one socket (/one user or similar) concept where the number of simultaneous sessions will be limited by the scheduler's ability to handle large numbers of threads (>1000). The IOCP concept allows limiting the number of threads to the number of cores in your system which means that the scheduler will have very little to do. The threads will only execute when the IOCP releases them after an I/O event has occurred. The thread services the IOC, (typically) initiates a new I/O and returns to wait at the IOCP for the next completion. Before releasing a thread the IOCP will also provide the context of the completion such that the thread will "know" what processing context the IOC belongs to.
The IOCP concept completely does away with polling which is a great resource waster although "wait on multiple object" polling is somewhat of an improvement. The last time I looked Linux had nothing remotely like IOCPs so a Linux multi-threaded application would be constructed quite differently compared to a Windows app with IOCPs.
In really efficient IOCP apps there is a risk that so many IOs (or rather Outputs) are queued to the IO resource involved that the system runs out of non-paged memory to store them. Conversely, in really inefficient IOCP apps there is a risk that so many Inputs are queued (waiting to be serviced) that the non-paged memory is exhausted when trying to temporarily buffer them.
If someone needs a portable and lightweight solution for threading in C, take a look at the plibsys library. It provides you thread management and synchronization, as well as other useful features like portable socket implementation. All major operating systems (Windows, Linux, OS X) are supported, various other less popular operating systems are also supported (i.e. AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, QNX, IRIX, etc). On every platform only the native calls are used to minimize the overheads. The library is fully covered with Unit tests which are run on a regular basis.
glib threads can be compiled cross-platforms.
The "best"/"simplest"/... answer here is definitely pthreads. It's the native threading architecture on Unix/POSIX systems and works almost as good on Windows. No need to look any further.
Given that you are constrained with C. I have two suggestions:
1) I have a seen a project (similar to yours) that had to run on Windows and Linux with threads. The way it was written was that it (the same codebase) used pthreads on Linux and win32 threads on Windows. This was achieved by a conditional #ifdef statement wherever threads needed to be created such as
#ifdef WIN32
//use win32 threads
#else
//use pthreads
#endif
2) The second suggestion might be to use OpenMP. Have you considered OpenMP at all?
Please let me know if I missed something or if you want more details. I am happy to help.
Best,
Krishna
From my experience, multi threading in C for windows is heavily tied to Win32 APIs. Other languages like C# and JAVA supported by a framework also tie into these core libraries while offering their thread classes.
However, I did find an openthreads API platform on sourceforge which might help you:
http://openthreads.sourceforge.net/
The API is modeled with respect to the Java and POSIX thread standard,
I have not tried this myself as I currently do not have a need to support multiple platforms on my C/C++ projects.
I've seached such question in google and got different answers.I cann't determine whether posix aio in linux 2.6 support socket file descriptor or not.
if it support tcp socket,does the aiocb.aio_offset=0 relative to the first byte readed from the tcp socket fd?
if it doesn't,does any asynchronous io library in linux support socket fd?
A comment above states that aio does not support sockets. You ask for possible alternatives.
The obvious ones are:
use an event driven programming model, either produced by hand using poll(2) or what have you or via a library like Niels Provos' "libevent"
use threads
I generally prefer the event driven way of doing things, and generally use libevent, which is documented here: http://libevent.org/
Bear in mind, however, that event driven programming is rather heavily different from what you may be used to in program organization. Threads are conceptually similar, although often less efficient when handling large numbers of sockets.
I have been experimenting with async Linux network sockets (aio_read et al in aio.h/librt), and one thing i have been trying to find out is whether these are zero-copy or not. Pretty much all i have read so far discusses file I/O, whereas its network I/O i am interested in.
AIO is a bit of a pain to use and i suspect is non-portable, so wondering whether its worth persevering with it. Zero-copy is just about the only advantage (albiet a major one for my purposes) it would have over (non-blocking) select/epoll..
In GLIBC, AIO is implemented using POSIX threads and a regular pread-call. So it's likely more expensive than select or epoll and doing the read or recv yourself.