Re: [PATCHv3 02/11] run-command: report failure for degraded output just once

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 4, 2015, 18:14 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd1vpbpik.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1446597434-1740-3-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 38 quoted lines

> The warning message is cluttering the output itself,
> so just report it once.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
>  run-command.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
> index 7c00c21..3ae563f 100644
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -1012,13 +1012,21 @@ static void pp_cleanup(struct parallel_processes *pp)
>  
>  static void set_nonblocking(int fd)
>  {
> +	static int reported_degrade = 0;
>  	int flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
> -	if (flags < 0)
> -		warning("Could not get file status flags, "
> -			"output will be degraded");
> -	else if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK))
> -		warning("Could not set file status flags, "
> -			"output will be degraded");
> +	if (flags < 0) {
> +		if (!reported_degrade) {
> +			warning("Could not get file status flags, "
> +				"output will be degraded");
> +			reported_degrade = 1;
> +		}
> +	} else if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK)) {
> +		if (!reported_degrade) {
> +			warning("Could not set file status flags, "
> +				"output will be degraded");
> +			reported_degrade = 1;
> +		}
> +	}
>  }

Imagine that we are running two things A and B at the same time. We ask poll(2) and it says both A and B have some data ready to be read, and we try to read from A. strbuf_read_once() would try to read up to 8K, relying on the fact that you earlier set the IO to be nonblock. It will get stuck reading from A without allowing output from B to drain. B's write may get stuck because we are not reading from it, and would cause B to stop making progress.

What if the other sides of the connection from A and B are talking with each other, and B's non-progress caused the processing for A on the other side of the connection to block, causing it not to produce more output to allow us to make progress reading from A (so that eventually we can give B a chance to drain its output)? Imagine A and B are pushes to the same remote, B may be pushing a change to a submodule while A may be pushing a matching change to its superproject, and the server may be trying to make sure that the submodule update completes and updates the ref before making the superproject's tree that binds that updated submodule's commit availble, for example? Can we make any progress from that point?

I am not convinced that the failure to set nonblock IO is merely "output will be degraded". It feels more like a fatal error if we are driving more than one task at the same time.