-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a way to run without the async-process thread #52
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I know I said that I wouldn't add any more features, but I think this is important enough. Right now, a thread called "async-process" is responsible for listening for SIGCHLD and reaping zombie processes. This listens for the SIGCHLD signal in Unix and uses a channel connected to the waitable handle on Windows. While this works, we can do better. Through async-signal, the signal was already asynchronous on Unix; we were already just using async_io::block_on to wait on the signal. After swapping out the channel used on Windows with async-channel, the process reaping function "reap" can be reimplemented as a fully asynchronous future. From here we must make sure this future is being polled at all times. To facilitate this, a function named "driver()" is added to the public API. This future acquires a lock on the reaper structure and calls the "reap()" future indefinitely. Multiple drivers can be created at once; they will just wait forever on this lock. This future is intended to be spawned onto an executor and left to run forever, making sure all child processes are signalled whenever necessary. If no tasks are running the driver future, the "async-process" thread is spawned and runs the "reap()" future itself. I've added the following controls to make sure that this system is robust: - If a "driver" task is dropped, another "driver" task will acquire the lock and keep the reaper active. - Before being dropped, the task checks to see if it is the last driver. If it is, it will spawn the "async-process" thread to be the driver. - When a Child is being created, it checks if there are any active drivers. If there are none, it spawns the "async-process" thread itself. - One concern is that the driver future wil try to spawn the "async-process" thread as the application exits and the task is being dropped, which will be unnecessary and lead to slower shutdowns. To prevent this, the future checks to see if there are any extant `Child` instances (a new refcount is added to Reaper to facilitate this). If there are none, and if there are no zombie processes, it does not spawn the additional thread. - Someone can still `mem::forget()` the driver thread. This does not lead to undefined behavior and just leads to processes being left dangling. At this point they're asking for wacky behavior. This strategy might also be viable for `async-io`, if we want to try to avoid needing to spawn the additional thread there as well. Closes #7 cc smol-rs/async-io#40 Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
fogti
reviewed
Oct 6, 2023
fogti
reviewed
Oct 8, 2023
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
fogti
reviewed
Oct 9, 2023
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
fogti
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I know I said that I wouldn't add any more features, but I think this is important enough.
Right now, a thread called "async-process" is responsible for listening for SIGCHLD and reaping zombie processes. This listens for the SIGCHLD signal in Unix and uses a channel connected to the waitable handle on Windows. While this works, we can do better. Through async-signal, the signal was already asynchronous on Unix; we were already just using async_io::block_on to wait on the signal. After swapping out the channel used on Windows with async-channel, the process reaping function "reap" can be reimplemented as a fully asynchronous future.
From here we must make sure this future is being polled at all times. To facilitate this, a function named "driver()" is added to the public API. This future acquires a lock on the reaper structure and calls the "reap()" future indefinitely. Multiple drivers can be created at once; they will just wait forever on this lock. This future is intended to be spawned onto an executor and left to run forever, making sure all child processes are signalled whenever necessary. If no tasks are running the driver future, the "async-process" thread is spawned and runs the "reap()" future itself.
I've added the following controls to make sure that this system is robust:
Child
instances (a new refcount is added to Reaper to facilitate this). If there are none, and if there are no zombie processes, it does not spawn the additional thread.mem::forget()
the driver thread. This does not lead to undefined behavior and just leads to processes being left dangling. At this point they're asking for wacky behavior.This strategy might also be viable for
async-io
, if we want to try to avoid needing to spawn the additional thread there as well.Closes #7
cc smol-rs/async-io#40