diff options
author | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-07 17:32:43 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-07 17:32:43 +0000 |
commit | 6bf0a5cb5034a7e684dcc3500e841785237ce2dd (patch) | |
tree | a68f146d7fa01f0134297619fbe7e33db084e0aa /docs/nspr/nonblockinglayeredio.rst | |
parent | Initial commit. (diff) | |
download | thunderbird-6bf0a5cb5034a7e684dcc3500e841785237ce2dd.tar.xz thunderbird-6bf0a5cb5034a7e684dcc3500e841785237ce2dd.zip |
Adding upstream version 1:115.7.0.upstream/1%115.7.0upstream
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to '')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/nspr/nonblockinglayeredio.rst | 94 |
1 files changed, 94 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/nspr/nonblockinglayeredio.rst b/docs/nspr/nonblockinglayeredio.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..19de77a888 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/nspr/nonblockinglayeredio.rst @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +Non-blocking layered I/O +======================== + +*[last edited by AOF 24 March 1998 14:15]* +I've recently been working on a long standing issue regarding NSPR's I/O +model. For a long time I've believed that the non-blocking I/O prevalent +in classic operating systems (e.g., UNIX) was the major determent for +having an reasonable layered protocols. Now that I have some first hand +experience, albeit just a silly little test program, I am more convinced +that ever of this truth. + +This memo is some of what I think must be done in NSPR's I/O subsystem +to make layered, non-blocking protocols workable. It is just a proposal. +There is an API change. + +Layered I/O +----------- + +NSPR 2.0 defines a structure by which one may define I/O layers. Each +layer looks basically like any other in that it still uses a +:ref:`PRFileDesc` as a object identifier, complete with the +**``IOMethods``** table of functions. However, each layer may override +default behavior of a particular operation to implement other services. +For instance, the experiment at hand is one that implements a little +reliable echo protocol; the client sends *n* bytes, and the same bytes +get echoed back by the server. In the non-layered design of this it is +straight forward. +The goal of the experiment was to put a layer between the client and +the network, and not have the client know about it. This additional +layer is one that, before sending the client's data, must ask permission +from the peer layer to send that many bytes. It imposes an additional +send and response inside of each client visible send operation. The +receive operations parallel the sends. Before actually receiving real +client data, the layer receives a notification that the other would like +to send some bytes. The layer is responsible for granting permission for +that data to be sent, then actually receiving the data itself, which is +delivered to the client. + +The synchronous form of the layer's operation is straight forward. A +call to receive (:ref:`PR_Recv`) first receives the request to send, +sends (:ref:`PR_Send`) the grant, then receives the actual data +(:ref:`PR_Recv`). All the client of the layer sees is the data coming +in. Similar behavior is observed on the sending side. + +Non-blocking layered +-------------------- + +The non-blocking method is not so simple. Any of the I/O operations +potentially result in an indication that no progress can be made. The +intermediate layers cannot act directly on this information, but must +store the state of the I/O operation until it can be resumed. The method +for determining that a I/O operation can make progress is to call +:ref:`PR_Poll` and indicating what type of progress is desired, +either input or output (or some others). Therein lies the problem. +The intermediate layer is performing operations that the client is +unaware. So when the client calls send (:ref:`PR_Send`) and is told +that the operation would block, it is possible that the layer below is +actually doing a receive (:ref:`PR_Recv`). The problem is that the +flag bits passed to :ref:`PR_Poll` are only reflective of the +client's knowledge and desires. This is further complicated by the fact +that :ref:`PR_Poll` is not layered. That is each layer does not have +the opportunity to override the behavior. It operates, not on a single +file descriptor (:ref:`PRFileDesc`), but on an arbitrary collection of +file descriptors. + +Into the picture comes another I/O method, **``poll()``**. Keep in mind +that all I/O methods are those that are part of the I/O methods table +structure (:ref:`PRIOMethods`). These functions are layered, and layers +may and sometimes must override their behavior by offering unique +implementations. The **``poll()``** method is used to provide two +modifying aspects to the semantics of :ref:`PR_Poll`: redefining the +polling bits (i.e., what to poll for) and to indicate that a layer is +already able to make progress in the manner suggested by the polling +bits. + +The **``poll()``** method is called by :ref:`PR_Poll` as the latter +is building the structure to provide the operating system call. The +stack's top layer will be called first. Each layer's implementation is +responsible for performing appropriate operations and possibly calling +the next lower layer's **``poll()``** method. +What the poll method is returning are the appropriate flags to assign to +the operating system's call. A layer would compute these based on the +values of the argument **``in_flags``** and possibly some state +maintained by the layer for the particular file descriptor. + +Additionally, if the layer has buffered data that will allow the +operation defined by **``in_flags``** to make progress, it will set +corresponding bits in **``out_flags``**. For instance, if +**``in_flags``** indicates that the client (or higher layer) wishes to +test for read ready and the layer has input data buffered, it would set +the read bits in the **``out_flags``**. If that is the case, then it +should also suppress the calling of the next lower layer's +**``poll()``** method and return a value equal to that of +**``in_flags``**. |