I have two processes A and B. The communication flow is always A -> B, but I need to do it using a named pipe, because I must use the pipe file descriptor in a select call inside the B process, and the data written to the pipe must persist when any or both of the processes exit.
The pipe is opened in non-blocking mode on both ends. In process A:
int push_fifo_fd = open(FIFO_NAME, O_WRONLY | O_NONBLOCK | O_CREAT, 0644);
In process B:
int fd = open(FIFO_NAME, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK | O_CREAT, 0644);
Q1. The process B uses curl multi interface, so I get the fd_sets of the curl multi handle and add the "fd" descriptor to the read fd_set, than make a call to select, to get the file descriptors available for reads and writes. In every call to select, "fd" is contained in the result read fd_set, but read returns 0, even if the write end is opened. This causes the process B to use 100% of processor time. I mention that I don't know to order in which the ends of the pipe are opened. The relevant code from B:
while (1)
{
fd_set read_fds, write_fds, err_fds;
FD_ZERO(&read_fds);
FD_ZERO(&write_fds);
FD_ZERO(&err_fds);
FD_SET(fifo_fd, &read_fds);
// some code
ccode = curl_multi_fdset(curlm, &read_fds, &write_fds, &err_fds, &max_fd);
max_fd = MAX(max_fd, fifo_fd);
rc = select(max_fd + 1, &read_fds, &write_fds, &err_fds, &timeout);
switch (rc)
{
case -1:
WARN("select");
continue;
case 0:
default:
{
if (FD_ISSET(fifo_fd, &read_fds))
{
// read from the fifo_fd
}
/* Now look at the handles that need attention */
int old_running_handles = running_handles;
ccode = curl_multi_perform(curlm, &running_handles);
if (ccode != CURLM_OK && ccode != CURLM_CALL_MULTI_PERFORM)
{
WARN("curl_multi_perform error: %s", curl_multi_strerror(ccode));
continue;
}
if (running_handles != old_running_handles)
{
CURLMsg *curl_msg;
int left_msgs = 0;
while ((curl_msg = curl_multi_info_read(curlm, &left_msgs)) != NULL)
{
// treat each easy handle
}
}
}
break;
}
}
Q2. In "man 7 fifo" is said "A process can open a FIFO in nonblocking mode. In this case, opening for read-only will succeed even if no-one has opened on the write side yet, opening for write-only will fail with ENXIO (no such device or address) unless the other end has already been opened." but the process A always can open successfully the write end of the pipe in non-blocking mode even the read end is not opened. Why is that? The platform on which I test is Ubuntu server 12.04.3, kernel 3.8.0-29.
The Q1 is expected by select()
or poll()
. See the linked question. A graceful resolution is to open another fd on the same fifo and close the original.
I believe the Q2 was also expected on some versions of kernel. The man 7 fifo have a paragraph about it:
Under Linux, opening a FIFO for read and write will succeed both in
blocking and nonblocking mode. POSIX leaves this behavior undefined.
This can be used to open a FIFO for writing while there are no
readers available.
That paragraph seems to claim that you can successfully open the write end of a fifo anytime, as observed in Q2 by the original author.
Though it seems to contradict the previous paragraph as the original question quoted also from the man 7 fifo page that is basically saying the open shall fail instead of succeed:
A process can open a FIFO in nonblocking mode. In this case, opening
for read-only succeeds even if no one has opened on the write side
yet and opening for write-only fails with ENXIO (no such device or
address) unless the other end has already been opened.
I'm seeing opening the write end in non-blocking mode shall fail when the read end is not open, on a 4.9.37 kernel. It must have changed from version 3.8 to 4.9, I guess.