On 1/18/22 20:30, Jinoh Kang wrote:
Actually I have observed that simply removing try_recv() altogether from sock_recv() suffers from another set of problems (that make the test fail):
- It makes recv() on nonblocking socket always fail with WSAEWOULDBLOCK.
- It turns all synchronous failures into asynchronous failures. Normally, a synchronous failure shall not fire up the APC or post to the completion port at all.
Thus, a call to try_recv() still has to be made before the async request enters pending mode, regardless of whether this call is done before receive_sock or not.
My previous approach was to do this "initial" try_recv() call via APC_ASYNC_IO (i.e. inside async_recv_proc), thereby making the call just like any other asynchronous try_recv() call. Eventually I could get to the point where all the unit tests pass, but the end result looked a bit messy (especially with the special case handling inside invoke_system_apc, and extra arrangements that are needed inside receive_sock).
Okay, that's fair enough.
That aside, though, I'm not sure that adding a new select type is really the right way to go about this. One approach that occurs to me, which might end up being simpler, would be to return an apc_call_t, essentially as if the select request had been called immediately afterward. (In that case perhaps we should return STATUS_KERNEL_APC rather than STATUS_ALERTED).
This is exactly the approach I have initially had in mind, and is described in https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52401#c4. Pasting it here:
- The client issues a 'recv_socket' call.
- The server determines if read_q is empty *and* the request can be served immediately.
- If this is the case, the server does the following:
- The server marks the current thread as being in system APC wait.
- The server bypasses sock->read_q and calls async_terminate() directly. (Alternatively, the server first puts the async in read_q and later calls async_wake_up( &sock->read_q ).)
- The server dequeues the next system APC (likely APC_ASYNC_IO from 3.2) from the queue.
- The server inserts the APC into the 'recv_socket' reply.
Ideally we could make it so that every Wineserver call has a flag that indicates whether it could process the original request *and* retrieve the next system APC from the queue in one go. This will eliminate the extra SIGUSR1 round trip in other cases as well.
(Note: 3.2 is slightly wrong, we should always go through sock->read_q no matter what.)
As you can see this inevitably winds up tweaking the select mechanism anyway. This approach has some open questions:
- How shell we return the results for our new pseudo-APC call? Using prev_apc in the select request, or a separate server call?
Using select seems reasonable to me. I don't think it would require much change in ntdll [an extra argument to server_select(), probably], and none at all in the server.
- Shall our pseudo-APC go through the system_apc queue? If so, what if there is another kernel APC that is already queued?
Yes, the point is to use APC_ASYNC_IO itself, so we just reuse that entire code.
I would imagine we should return the first APC in the queue. In the normal case that should be the APC we just queued; if not we were going to receive SIGUSR1 anyway.
- Shall we reuse invoke_system_apc() for this apc_call_t response?
Yes, of course.
- Shall we reuse queue_apc() to generate the apc_call_t? If so, what shall be done with the gratuitous SIGUSR1 delivery? Enter uninterrupted region or explicitly block SIGUSR1 while calling receive_sock?
I think we should avoid sending SIGUSR1 in the first place. We'd need some way of communicating to queue_apc() or even is_in_apc_wait() that we are going to try to return the APC synchronously.
Also, as I've discussed earlier, the initial synchronous try_recv() call has subtly different semantics with respect to error handling compared to subsequent asynchronous counterparts, which does make existing code more complicated.
Sure. I don't think using APC_ASYNC_IO should complicate any of that, although to be sure I haven't tried it.