> 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 > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01529.html. 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: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
