This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: cygwin source-patch fixing deadlock while writing to serial port

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:08:39PM +0100, H. Henning Schmidt wrote:
> >I found a potential deadlock while writing to a serial port (e.g.
> >/dev/com1) that has been opened as O_RDWR. The deadlock occurs from time
> >to time (not sure about exact conditions) when I write to that port,
> >while there is data coming in (e.g. from an external device) and I do
> >not read away that data fast enough from the port.
> >
> >I did provide a test case a while ago in
> > I digged into
> >the issue some more now and found that the executing thread got
> >sometimes deadlocked in fhandler_serial::raw_write(). It basically ends
> >up in a for(;;) loop and just never hits the break;
> >
Exactly.  When the input buffer overflows, all serial communications cease
and calls exit with ERROR_OPERATION_ABORTED.  If you only call write, then
the ClearCommError() necessary to start things up again is never called,
and you stick in that infinite loop.

Ok, I will be happy to learn what the proper fix looks like in your opinion.

However, I have a hard time accepting the fact that I cannot write OUT the serial port because my INput buffer overflows. At least when I have switched
off all kinds of flow control (which I have), then I consider these to be two
independent streams that happen to share one filedesc. Or should I perhaps
open two independent filedescriptors in this case, one write-only, one read-only?

Are you saying that the underlying Win-API enforces what you state above, or does
this really make sense in some way and I just didn't get it yet? Your statement
sounds to me like I am forced to keep a second thread around, and if only to get
me out of that trap, once I get hung there ... does not sound too elegant to me ...

> >The applied patch adds a safety exit to that for(;;) loop.
> >This fixes the testcase referenced above.
> >
Yuck!  No, this is not the proper fix.

> >This might not be the last problem lingering in the serial access code
> >(there are some FIXME tokens still around ...), but it is definitely an
> >improvement for me. I thought I'd share that with you.
> Can you convince me that this isn't just a band-aid?  I don't understand
> why cygwin *shouldn't* hang in a situation like this.  There are
> certainly similar situations where this happens on linux.
> Perhaps we need a low_priority_sleep (10) in the loop in that situation
> or something.
No.  I have a partial patch for the above, but I am in the process of
getting a new Windows box and shuffling all my data.  I'll try to submit
it when things settle if no one beats me to it.

who am I to beat you ... but be assured that I'll be waiting eagerly for this patch.
This issue has been kicking me for a long time (letting my app hang up every once in a while), and I really want get this fixed. So now that I know that there is a better
way to do it ... that's what I'm longing for then :-)

-- Unsubscribe info: Problem reports: Documentation: FAQ:

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