Re: [PATCH 6/8] run-command: add an asynchronous parallel child processor

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 14.12.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Stefan Beller:
This allows to run external commands in parallel with ordered output
on stderr.

If we run external commands in parallel we cannot pipe the output directly
to the our stdout/err as it would mix up. So each process's output will
flow through a pipe, which we buffer. One subprocess can be directly
piped to out stdout/err for a low latency feedback to the user.

Example:
Let's assume we have 5 submodules A,B,C,D,E and each fetch takes a
different amount of time as the different submodules vary in size, then
the output of fetches in sequential order might look like this:

  time -->
  output: |---A---| |-B-| |-------C-------| |-D-| |-E-|

When we schedule these submodules into maximal two parallel processes,
a schedule and sample output over time may look like this:

process 1: |---A---| |-D-| |-E-|

process 2: |-B-| |-------C-------|

output:    |---A---|B|---C-------|DE

So A will be perceived as it would run normally in the single child
version. As B has finished by the time A is done, we can dump its whole
progress buffer on stderr, such that it looks like it finished in no
time. Once that is done, C is determined to be the visible child and
its progress will be reported in real time.

So this way of output is really good for human consumption, as it only
changes the timing, not the actual output.

For machine consumption the output needs to be prepared in the tasks,
by either having a prefix per line or per block to indicate whose tasks
output is displayed, because the output order may not follow the
original sequential ordering:

  |----A----| |--B--| |-C-|

will be scheduled to be all parallel:

process 1: |----A----|
process 2: |--B--|
process 3: |-C-|
output:    |----A----|CB

This happens because C finished before B did, so it will be queued for
output before B.

The detection when a child has finished executing is done the same way as
two fold. First we check regularly if the stderr pipe still exists in an
interleaved manner with other actions such as checking other children
for their liveliness or starting new children. Once a child closed their
stderr stream, we assume it is stopping very soon, such that we can use
the `finish_command` code borrowed from the single external process
execution interface.

I can't quite parse the first sentence in this paragraph. Perhaps something like this:

To detect when a child has finished executing, we check interleaved
with other actions (such as checking the liveliness of children or
starting new processes) whether the stderr pipe still exists. Once a
child closed its stderr stream, we assume it is terminating very soon,
and use finish_command() from the single external process execution
interface to collect the exit status.


By maintaining the strong assumption of stderr being open until the
very end of a child process, we can avoid other hassle such as an
implementation using `waitpid(-1)`, which is not implemented in Windows.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]