ipc::util::sync_io Namespace Reference

Contains common code, as well as important explanatory documentation in the following text, for the sync_io pattern used in ipc::transport and ipc::session to provide fine-tuned control over integrating asynchronous Flow-IPC activities into the user's event loop. More...

Classes
class	Asio_waitable_native_handle
	Useful if using the sync_io pattern within a user event loop built on boost.asio (optionally with flow.async help), an object of this class wraps a non-null Native_handle and allows one to use .async_wait() to perform event waiting on behalf of any sync_io-implementing ipc::transport or ipc::session object. More...
class	Timer_event_emitter
	An object of this type, used internally to implement sync_io-pattern objects that require timer events, starts a thread dedicated exclusively to running timer waits on the sync_io object's behalf, so that when such a timer fires, it emits a pipe-readable event to be detected by the user's event loop, which it then reports to sync_io object. More...

Typedefs
using	Task_ptr = boost::shared_ptr< Task >
	Short-hand for ref-counted pointer to a Function<> that takes no arguments and returns nothing; in particular used for on_active_ev_func arg of sync_io::Event_wait_func. More...
using	Event_wait_func = Function< void(Asio_waitable_native_handle *hndl_of_interest, bool ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv, Task_ptr &&on_active_ev_func)>
	In sync_io pattern, concrete type storing user-supplied function invoked by pattern-implementing ipc::transport and ipc::session object to indicate interest in an I/O status event (writable, readable) for a particular Native_handle. More...

Functions
std::ostream &	operator<< (std::ostream &os, const Timer_event_emitter &val)
	Prints string representation of the given Timer_event_emitter to the given ostream. More...

Detailed Description

Contains common code, as well as important explanatory documentation in the following text, for the sync_io pattern used in ipc::transport and ipc::session to provide fine-tuned control over integrating asynchronous Flow-IPC activities into the user's event loop.

What's all this, then?

You may notice that for ~every class/class template X in this library that provides 1+ X::async_*(..., F) method(s), where F() is a completion handler for an async operation, there exists also – in a sub-namespace named sync_io – a similar-looking type sync_io::X.

Note

At times, generally in ipc::session and class template ipc::transport::struc::Channel specifically, async ops don't necessarily use async_* naming, but the point remains that: an operation occurs in some sense in the background, and then a handler function, given as an arg, is called when the operation is completed. Neverthelss for this discussion we will often take the case of, indeed, an operation named X::async_*(..., F), with F() a one-off completion handler. It's the basic, most mainstream pattern.

Long story short, all else being equal, we would recommend the use of X over sync_io::X: it is easier (in most cases), less error-prone, and delivers similar performance – quite possibly even better (due to automatic parallelization albeit at the cost of mandatory context-switching). However sync_io::X does exist for a good reason, at least for some important Xes, and in an advanced, highly peformance-sensitive application it may be worth considering switching to the direct use of sync_io::X. For what it is worth, internally X is usually written in terms of sync_io::X; the latter is essentially the core logic, while the former provides auto-parallelization and a simpler interface.

Note

For this reason comments sometimes refer to a sync_io::X core: where the basic X-ish capabalities and data live. The async-I/O X is then often built around a sync_io::X core. Because of this it is usually easy, and fast, to convert a sync_io::X into an X – via a move-like ctor called sync_io-core adopting ctor. Additionally, ipc::transport::Channel template – which bundles local peer objects of 1-2 IPC pipes – can bundle either async-I/O peer objects or sync_io peer objects, and one can always convert the latter to the former by calling x.async_io_obj().

In cases where performance is not a real concern, such as for the assumed-rare ipc::session::Session_server::async_accept() operations, internally sync_io::X may actually be written in terms of X instead... but we digress. Either way it is a black box.

Some examples of Xes that have sync_io::X counterparts:

• core-layer transport::Native_socket_stream (including its async_receive_*(), and the handler-less – but nevertheless potentially asynchronous – send_*()) and all other Blob_sender, Blob_receiver, Native_handle_sender, Native_handle_receiver concept impls including the bundling transport::Channel;
• structured-layer ipc::transport::struc::Channel;
• session::Client_session (with its channel-accept and error handlers) and session::Session_server (ditto, plus with its async_accept());
  • all their session::shm counterparts.

The async-I/O (default) pattern

Consider X – take for example transport::Native_socket_stream – and a particular async operation – take, e.g., transport::Native_socket_stream::async_receive_blob().

When x.async_receive_blob(..., F) is invoked, F() is the user-specified completion handler, while ... specifies details about the operation, in this case the target buffer where to write data. It works as follows: x attempts to perform the operation (in this case receive a single in-message as soon as it becomes available which may or may not be instant); and once it has suceeded, it invokes F(...) (where ... indicates results, usually at least an Error_code) from an unspecified thread that is not the user's calling thread (call it thread U, where x.async_*() was called). Even if the op completes immediately, x.async_*() will never invoke F() synchronously; always from the unspecified thread.

That's great, but what does really happen? Answer: x, usually at construction, invisibly, starts a separate thread (technically it could be co-using a thread with other objects; but in reality as of this writing each object really starts a thread). An async operation might complete synchronously (perhaps a message is available in a kernel receive buffer and is therefore immediately, internally, received inside x.async_receive_blob() body); or it might occur in the background and involve (internally) async waiting of native-handle readability – possibly even more threads might start (internally) to get things to work. Either way, there is that thread – call it thread W – where at least the completion handler F() will be called.

(If x is destroyed before this has a chance to happen, the x destructor shall – last-thing – invoke F(), passing it the special operation-aborted Error_code. That is the case for one-off async-ops like that one. There are also variations such as the completion handlers of transport::struc::Channel, but the key point – that work happens in the background, in the object-created own thread W, and user-supplied handlers are run from thread W – remains the same. Another variation is async-ops that don't require a completion handler; for example transport::Native_socket_stream::send_blob() may perform work in the background upon encountering would-block conditions internally – and this again occurs in thread W – but there is no completion handler to invoke.)

What is the user supposed to do with an async-op like this? In practice we tend to think of this in terms of 2 basic possiblities for how the user's own event loop might be organized.

• Proactor pattern: This is what boost.asio uses, what flow.async facilitates further, and what we generally recommend all else being equal. We won't describe it here in detail, but integrating such a loop with this async-I/O pattern in Flow-IPC is quite simple:
  1. Call x.async_*(..., F) as explained above.
  2. As F() supply a short wrapper that will place the true handling of the event onto the same event loop – thread U (though multiple such threads might be in use alternatively) – where you invoked x.async_*(F). For example:

  ...
  m_my_asio_loop.post([t]() { start_async_op(); }
  ...
void start_async_op()
{
  // We are in thread U.
  x.async_receive_blob(..., [this](const Error_code& err_code, size_t sz)
  {
    // We are in "unspecified thread" W.
    m_my_asio_loop.post([this, err_code, sz]() { on_async_op_done(err_code, sz); }
  }
}
void on_async_op_done(const Error_code& err_code, size_t sz)
{
  // We are in thread U.
  // ...handle it....
}

Alternatively:

• Reactor pattern: Usually built on top of an OS-supplied blocking polling method of some kind – in POSIX nowadays usually at least poll(), in Linux possibly using the more advanced epoll_*() – which centers on an "FD-set" (native handle set), where one describes Native_handles (FDs) and the events one awaits (readable, writable) for each; and in each event loop iteration one runs a poll-wait operation (like poll() or epoll_wait()). This blocks until 1 or more events-of-interest are active; then wakes up and reports which ones they were. User code then synchronously invokes handling for each event of interest; such handling might modify the events-of-interest set, etc., until all such work is done, and the next poll-wait op executes. Thus in the reactor pattern methods like on_async_op_done() are invoked in a flow-control setup inverted versus the proactor pattern; but ultimately they're both doing the same thing. To integrate such a loop with this async-I/O pattern in Flow-IPC, a little extra work is required:
  • Sometimes event-loop libraries provide this as a built-in feature: a task queue. So a facility similar to post() above is supplied. Hence the code above would be adapted to a reactor-pattern loop and end up fairly similar: In F() do some equivalent to the post() in the snippet above. Internally it'll set up some "interrupter" handle in the central [e]poll*() handle-set and cause – from thread W – for thread U's poll-wait to wake up. Otherwise:
  • This task-queue facility can be written with relatively little difficulty. Essentially it involves a simple IPC mechanism, perhaps an anonymous pipe, through which thread-W-invoked F()s can inform the thread-U poll-wait that it must wake up and handle events, among any others that the poll-wait covers.

So that's the async-I/O (default) pattern in Flow-IPC. Generally it is easy to work with – especially in a proactor-pattern event loop, but otherwise also not hard. It cleanly separates Flow-IPC's internal needs from the rest of the application's: Flow-IPC needs to do background work? It takes care of its own needs: it starts and ends threads without your participation. Moreover this may well help performance of the user's own event loop: Flow-IPC's cycles are mostly spent in separate threads, reducing the length of your loop's single iteration and thus helping reduce your latency. The processors' context-switching is automatic and usually efficient; and it automatically makes use of multiple hardware cores.

Rationale for the sync_io pattern

So why might the default pattern described above be insufficient? A detailed study of this is outside our scope here; but basically it is a matter of control. The way it starts threads, in a way that cannot be specified by you (the user), and switches between them may be helpful in 95% of cases; but some applications want complete control of any such thing. For instance suppose I'd like to start with doing all that background work of Native_socket_stream::async_receive_blob() directly in thread U. It should be possible, right? Whatever events it waits on – in reality, internally, principally it waits for readability of a Unix domain socket – I could just wait-on in my own thread-U epoll_wait(). When an active event is detected, I could do the resulting non-blocking-reads – that normally would be done in the background thread W – directly after the poll-wait.

Maybe that would be good, reducing context-switching overhead. Or maybe it wouldn't be good, as a big fat loop iteration could cause latency in serving the next batch of work. If so, and I did want to do some of the work in some other thread for parallelization, maybe I want to share that other thread with some other processing. Or... or.... Point is: perhaps I want to explicitly structure what threads do what, whether or not I want multi-threaded processing.

If that is the case, then the sync_io pattern will serve that need. In this pattern, for example in transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream, you'll notice completion handlers are still used as part of the API. However, they are never invoked in the background: you call into a sync_io::X API, and it might synchronously only and at very specific points invoke a completion handler F() that you supplied it earlier.

We'll get into details below, but to summarize how this is integrated with the 2 above-covered user event loop patterns:

• Proactor pattern: The sync_io pattern in Flow-IPC has first-class support for a boost.asio event loop on the user's part. So – basically – if you've got a boost::asio::io_context E (flow::util::Task_engine E) run()ning over 1+ threads U, then sync_io::X shall give you boost.asio descriptor objects associated with E and ask you – yourself, albeit on its behalf – to perform .async_wait(write, G) or .async_wait(read, G) on those descriptors; and inform the sync_io::X when they've completed, inside G(). As a result, sync_io::X internals might inform you of the completion of an async_...() op earlier requested by you.
• Reactor pattern: If your loop isn't boost.asio-based, then sync_io::X will similarly ask you to perform async-waits on this or that handle for read or write or both, just over a slightly different API – one conducive to poll(), epoll_ctl()/epoll_wait(), and the like. In short it'll tell you what FD and what event it wants you to wait-on (and again give you function G() to call when it is indeed active).

Thus, you control what happens in what thread – and everything can happen in your single thread, if you so desire. You can create the other threads, arrange necessary synchronization – including of access to the sync_io::X in question – as opposed to rely on whatever we've internally designed inside non-sync_io X. You control when a sync_io::X does something. In particular, it is only in a couple of specific sync_io::X::* APIs that a completion handler you gave it can actually be called. If it is called, it is always called synchronously right then and there, not from some unknown background thread.

So sync_io-pattern-implementing APIs will never start threads?

Well, they might. In some cases it's an internal need that cannot be avoided. However, when both (1) it can be avoided, and (2) performance could possibly be affected, then correct: Flow-IPC will avoid starting a thread and performing context-switching. If it's immaterial for performance in practice, then it absolutely reserves the right to make background threads, whether for ease of internal implementation or some other reason. And, of course, if there's some blocking API that must be used internally – and there is simply no choice but to use that API – then a thread will need to be started behind the scenes. We can't very well block your thread U, so at that point we do what we must.

However, even in that case, a sync_io API is still supplied. This may be helpful to more easily integrate with your reactor-pattern event loop. (However, if you have a proactor like boost.asio as your event loop, then in our view it is unlikely to be helpful in that sense. At that point you might as well use the async-I/O alternative API – unless, again, there is some performance benefit to maintaining greater control of what part of Flow-IPC executes when from what thread.)

Using the sync_io pattern: design rationale

Though it will look different and perhaps complex, it is actually at its core similar to other third-party APIs that require the user to perform async-waits on their behalf. The most well known example of such an API is perhaps OpenSSL. Take SSL_read() – quite similar in spirit to sync_io-pattern x.async_read_blob(). When invoked, barring connection-hosing errors, one of 2 things will happen:

• It will succeed and read 1 or more bytes and return this fact ("no error, I have read N bytes").
• It will fail due to would-block, because it either needs the underlying stream socket to be readable, or to be writable. (The latter – needing writability – may seem strange for SSL_read(), but it's normal: perhaps the connection is in the middle of a cert negotiation, and at this stage needs to write something out first; and the connection happens to be in such a state as to not be able to write bytes to the kernel send buffer at that moment.) So it will return either:
  • SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ (meaning, "the underlying stream-socket handle (FD) needs to be readable -- call me again after you've *async-waited* successfully on this *event-of-interest*, and I will try again"); or
  • SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE (same but needs writability isntead).

Your application would then internally register interest in FD so-and-so to be readable or writable. Perhaps some SSL_write() would be interested in another such event simultaneously too. So then the next time the event loop came up to the next poll() or epoll_wait(), you'd indeed wait on these registered events. If the SSL_read()-related event-of-interest was indeed returned as active, your program would know that fact, based on its own data structures, and know to try SSL_read() again. That time SSL_read() might succeed; or it might require writability again, or readability this time, and would return SSL_ERROR_WANT_* again. Eventually it'd get what it needs and return success.

sync_io pattern in Flow-IPC is not much different. It is arguably more complex to use, but there are good reasons for it. Namely there are some differences as to our requirements compared to OpenSSL's. To wit:

• For a given operation – whether it's Native_socket_stream::async_receive_blob() or the even more internally complex transport::struc::Channel::expect_msg() – there will usually be more than 1 event of interest a time, in fact spread out over more than 1 handle (FD) at a time at that. Namely in addition to readability/writability of the underlying low-level trqnsport, there are timer(s) (such as the idle timer – idle_timer_run()); and struc::Channel can be configured to have 2 in-pipes and thus will be async-waiting on 2 FDs' read events.
  • Hence we need to be able to express the desired async-waits to the user in a more flexible way than a simple "can't do it, tell me when my socket is Xable and call me again." We have to communicate an entire set-of-events-of-interest as well as changes in it over time.
• OpenSSL is targeted at old-school event loops – ~all written in the reactor-pattern style. Flow-IPC is meant to be usable by modern proactor-pattern applications and old-school reactor-pattern ones as well. It would be unfortunate, in particular, if a given X is written in the modern handler-based way, while X::sync_io counterpart is just entirely different. In fact, suppose sync_io::X is available; our X internally "wants" to be written around a boost.asio loop and reuse sync_io::X internally as well. So in other words, both aesthetically and practically, an OpenSSL-style old-school API would be a pain to use in a boost.asio-based application (our own async-I/O-pattern classes being a good test case).

Therefore the sync_io pattern is strongly inspired by the boost.asio proactor pattern API. As a corollary it provides special support for the case when the user's event loop is boost.asio-based. If your event loop is old-school, you will lose nothing however – just don't use that feature.

Using the sync_io pattern: how-to

Take x.async_receive_blob(..., F). If x is an X, we've already described it. Now let x be a sync_io::X. The good news is initiating the same operation uses almost the exact same signature. It takes the same arguments including a completion handler F() with the exact same signature itself. There is however one difference: if F() takes 1+ args (1st one usually const Error_code& err_code; followed at times by something like size_t sz indicating how many bytes were transferred) – then the sync_io form of the async_...() method shall take sync_-prefixed out-arg counterparts to those args directly as well. Thus specifically:

• If async-I/O sig is x.async_receive_blob(..., F), where F() is of form void (const Error_code& err_code, size_t sz), then:
• sync_io sig is: x.async_receive_blob(..., Error_code* sync_err_code, size_t* sync_sz, F), where F() is of the same form as before. You shall provide &sync_err_code, &sync_sz, and your local variables shall be set to certain values upon return.
  • You may also leave sync_err_code (if applicable) null. In that case standard Flow error-reporting semantics are active: if (and only if) *sync_err_code would be set to truthy (non-success) value, but sync_err_code is a null pointer, then a flow::error::Runtime_error is thrown with the would be *sync_err_code stored inside the exception object (and a message in its .what()).

So let's say you call sync_io x.async_receive_blob(), providing it &sync_err_code, &sz args, otherwise using the same arg values as with async-I/O. (For simplicity of discussion let's assume you did not pass null pointer for the sync-err-code arg.) Then: F() will no longer execute from some unspecified thread at some unknown future time. Instead there are 2 possibilities.

• If x.async_receive_blob() was able to receive a message (more generally – complete the operation) synchronously (immediately), then:
  • The method itself shall emit (via sync_err_code out-arg) either no error (falsy value) or an error (truthy value) that is specifically not ipc::transport::error::Code::S_SYNC_IO_WOULD_BLOCK.
    • This is quite analogous to SSL_read() succeeding immediately, without SSL_ERROR_WANT_*.
  • The method itself shall synchronously emit other sync_ out-arg values indicating the result of the operation. In this case that is sync_sz == 0 on error, or sync_sz > 0 indicating how many bytes long the successfully, synchronously received blob is.
    • Again: This is quite analogous to SSL_read() succeeding immediately, without SSL_ERROR_WANT_*.
  • The async completion handler, F, shall be utterly and completely ignored. It will not be saved. It will not be called. The operation already finished: you get to deal with it right then and there like a normal synchronous human being.
• Conversely, if x.async_receive_blob() can only complete the op after some events-of-interest (to x) become active (we'll discuss how this works in a moment) – then:
  • The method itself shall emit (via sync_err_code out-arg) the specific code ipc::transport::error::Code::S_SYNC_IO_WOULD_BLOCK.
    • This is analogous to SSL_read() returning SSL_ERROR_WANT_*.
  • It shall save F internally inside x.
  • Later, when your loop does detect an event-of-interest (to x) is active, it shall explicitly call into another x API method – we call it (*on_active_ev_func)() – and that method may synchronously invoke the memorized completion handler F(). In the case of x.async_receive_blob() this F() call will be just as you're used-to with async-I/O pattern: err_code truthy on error, sz == 0; or err_code falsy on success, sz > 0 indicating size of received blob.
    • Since x.async_receive_blob() has one-off completion handler semantics, at this point it'll forget F.
    • However, with sync_io pattern, x shall never issue an operation-aborted call to F() or x destruction or anything like that. That's an async-I/O thing.

The "later, when your loop" step is analogous to: your loop awaiting an event as asked by the would-block SSL_read(), then once active calling SSL_read() again; and the latter, this time, returning success. Note, however, that you do not re-call x.async_receive_blob() on the desired active event. Conceptually you're doing the same thing – you're saying, "the event you wanted is ready; if you can get what I wanted then do it now" – but you're doing it by using a separate API.

That leaves the other other major piece of the API: how to in fact be informed of a desired event-of-interest and subsequently indicate that event-of-interest is indeed active. In terms of the API, this procedure is decoupled from the actual x.async_receive_blob() API. Moreover it is not expressed as some kind of big set-of-handles-and-events-in-which-x-has-interest-at-a-given-time either. Instead, conceptually, it is expressed similarly to boost.asio: x says to itself: I want to do handle_so_and_so.async_wait(readable, F); or: I want to do handle_so_and_so.async_wait(writable, F). But since handle_so_and_so is not a boost.asio I/O object, it has to express the same thing to the user of x. How? Answer: sync_io::Event_wait_func. Its doc header explains the details. We summarize for our chosen example of x.async_receive_blob():

• Just after constructing the x, set up the async-wait function: x.start_receive_blob_ops(E), where E is a function with signature a-la Event_wait_func.
  • (Note that receive_blob fragment of the method name. This is replaced with other fragments for other operations. In some cases an object – ipc::transport::Native_socket_stream being a prime example – supports 2+ sets of operations. For example Native_socket_stream::start_send_blob_ops() is for the independent outgoing-direction operations that can occur concurrently to incoming-direction start_receive_blob_ops() ops.) No need to worry about that for now though; we continue with our receive_blob example use case.
• If (and only if!) your event loop is boost.asio-based, then precede this call with one that supplies the boost.asio Task_engine (or strand or...) where you do your async work: .replace_event_wait_handles().

using ipc::util::sync_io::Task_ptr;
using ipc::util::sync_io::Asio_waitable_native_handle;
 
x.replace_event_wait_handles
  ([this]() -> auto { return Asio_waitable_native_handle(m_my_task_engine); });
x.start_receive_blob_ops([this](Asio_waitable_native_handle* hndl_of_interest,
                                bool ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv,
                                Task_ptr&& on_active_ev_func)
{
  my_rcv_blob_sync_io_ev_wait(hndl_of_interest, ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv, std::move(on_active_ev_func));
});

We are now ready for the last sub-piece: named my_rcv_blob_sync_io_ev_wait() in that snippet. This key piece responds to the instruction: async-wait for the specified event for me please, and let me know when that event is active by calling (*on_active_ev_func)() at that time. The details of how exactly to do this can be found in the sync_io::Event_wait_func doc header – including tips on integrating with poll() and epoll_*(). Here we will assume you have a boost.asio loop, continuing from the above snippet. The simplest possible continuation:

void my_rcv_blob_sync_io_ev_wait(Asio_waitable_native_handle* hndl_of_interest,
                                 bool ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv,
                                 Task_ptr&& on_active_ev_func)
{
  // sync_io wants us to async-wait.  Oblige.
  hndl_of_interest->async_wait(ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv
                                 ? Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_write
                                 : Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_read,
                               [this, on_active_ev_func = std::move(on_active_ev_func)]
                                 (const Error_code& err_code)
  {
    if (err_code == boost::asio::error::operation_aborted) { return; } // Shutting down?  Get out.
 
    // Event is active.  sync_io wants us to inform it of this.  Oblige.
    (*on_active_ev_func)();
    // ^-- THAT POTENTIALLY INVOKED COMPLETION HANDLER F() WE PASS IN TO x.async_receive_blob(F)!!!
  });
}

That's it. Note well: (*on_active_ev_func)() is (a) informing sync_io-pattern-implementing x of the event it (x) wanted; and (b) possibly getting the result you wanted in the original async_receive_*() call. Thus it is the equivalent of the 2nd SSL_read() call, after satisying the SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ or SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE result. The only difference, really, is the mechanic of getting the result is through a synchronous call to your completion handler.

There is, however, an extremely important subtlety to consider additionally. The key point:

• (*on_active_ev_func)() should be thought of as an API – a method! – of x, the sync_io-pattern-implementing Flow-IPC object...
• ...right alongside (in our use case here) .async_receive_blob().

That means it is not thread-safe to call (*on_active_ev_func)() concurrently with x.async_receive_blob(). What does this mean in practice? Answer:

• If you execute all these things in a single-threaded event loop – nothing. You need not worry about synchronization.
• If you perform some of your work on x (perhaps the .async_*() calls) in one thread but the async-wait handling – and the potentially resulting synchronous invocation of your own completion handlers – in another...
  • ...then you, at a minimum, need a mutex-lock (or use of a strand, or ...) around the call sites into x.method(...), for all related methods of x...
  • ...*including* the call to (*on_active_ev_func)().

Chances are, though, that if you're operating in multiple threads, then anyway you'll need to protect your own data structures against concurrent writing. Remember: (*on_active_ev_func)() may well invoke your own completion handler from the original x.async_receive_blob(..., F) call. That code (your code) is more than likely to react to the received payload in some way, and that might be touching data structures accessed from 2+ threads. It would therefore make sense that the relevant mutex be already locked. In this example we presuppose your application might invoke async-receives from a thread U while placing handlers onto a thread W:

using flow::util::Lock_guard;
 
...
  // In your thread U:
 
  Lock_guard<decltype(m_my_rcv_mutex)> lock(m_my_rcv_mutex); // <-- ATTN!  Protects x receive ops at least.
  ...
  ipc::Error_code sync_err_code;
  size_t sync_sz;
  x.async_receive_blob(m_target_msg,
                       &sync_err_code, &sync_sz,
                       [this](const ipc::Error_code& err_code, size_t sz) { on_msg_in(err_code, sz); });
  if (sync_err_code != ipc::transport::error::Code::S_SYNC_IO_WOULD_BLOCK)
  {
    // ...Handle contents of m_target_msg, or sync_err_code indicating error ion -- perhaps ~like on_msg_in()!
    // Note m_my_rcv_mutex is locked... as it would be in on_msg_in() (which won't run in this case)!
  }
  // else { on_msg_in() will run later.  x.receive_...() probably invoked my_rcv_blob_sync_io_ev_wait(). }
...
 
void my_rcv_blob_sync_io_ev_wait(Asio_waitable_native_handle* hndl_of_interest,
                                 bool ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv,
                                 Task_ptr&& on_active_ev_func)
{
  // In your thread U:
 
  // sync_io wants us to async-wait.  Oblige.  (Do not lock m_my_rcv_mutex!)
  hndl_of_interest->async_wait(ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv
                                 ? Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_write
                                 : Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_read,
                               [this, on_active_ev_func = std::move(on_active_ev_func)]
                                 (const Error_code& err_code)
  {
    if (err_code == boost::asio::error::operation_aborted) { return; } // Shutting down?  Get out.
 
    // In your thread W:
 
    // Event is active.  sync_io wants to inform it of this.  Oblige.
 
    flow::util::Lock_guard<decltype(m_my_rcv_mutex)> lock(m_my_rcv_mutex); // <-- ATTN!
 
    (*on_active_ev_func)();
    // ^-- THAT POTENTIALLY INVOKED on_msg_in()!!!
  });
}
 
void on_msg_in(const Error_code& err_code, size_t sz)
{
  // In your thread W:
  // m_my_rcv_mutex is locked!
 
  ... // Handle contents of m_target_msg, or err_code indicating error.
}

Just remember: You choose when x does anything that might touch your data, or itself. This happens in exactly three possible places and always synchronously:

• The x.async_receive_blob() initiating call itself (and ones like it, all having async-I/O almost-identical-sig counterparts in X:: for any given sync_io::X::).
  • OpenSSL analogy: initial SSL_read().
• Your code reacting to non-would-block return from x.async_receive_blob(), right after it (and ones like it).
  • OpenSSL analogy: reacting to initial SSL_read() succeeding right away.
• (*on_active_ev_func)().
  • OpenSSL analogy: subsequent SSL_read(), once you've detected its SSL_ERROR_WANT_* has been satisfied.

Is there always a completion handler?

Answer: No. An async op might not have a completion handler, but it is still an async op and may need to ask you to async-wait for some handle to be readable and/or writable to work properly. The most prominent case of this is sending items as exemplified by ipc::transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream::send_blob(). How to handle it? Well, it's the same as any async_*() op (which shall always take a completion handler) – but simpler. Simply put: Such an op shall be initiated by a method that takes no completion handler arg, so you simply don't provide one. (By convention it will also lack an async_ prefix in the method name.) Beyond that, everything is the same:

• It may (or may not) initiate an async-wait by calling the Event_wait_func you supplied via start_*ops().
• Your Event_wait_func should indeed – on successful async-wait – invoke (*on_active_ev_func)(). Internally that may continue, or complete, whatever async processing x needs to do.
  • The difference: it won't invoke some completion handler of yours... as you didn't (and couldn't) provide one.

Multiple op-types in a given sync_io-pattern-implementing object

Consider, first, ipc::session::sync_io::Session_server_adapter. It has only one operation, really: session::sync_io::Session_server_adapter::async_accept(). To set it up, you'll do (as explained above by another example use case): x.start_ops(), possibly preceded by x.replace_event_wait_handles() (but that guy is beside the point).

Easy enough. The x can't do any other "type of thing." Same is true of, say, ipc::transport::sync_io::Blob_stream_mq_sender: it can only x.send_blob() (and x.auto_ping(), x.end_sending(), x.async_end_sending() – all of which deal with sending messages out); and needs only x.start_send_blob_ops() for setup.

What if an object can do multiple things though? Native_socket_stream (operating as a Blob_sender and Blob_receiver) can do at least 2: it can

• send (.send_blob(), .end_sending(), .async_end_sending(), .auto_ping()),
• and receive (.async_receive_blob(), .idle_timer_run()).

These are 2 distinct op-types, and each one has its own independent API started via .start_send_blob_ops() and .start_receive_blob_ops() respectively. (If it were networked – this might be in the works – it would probably gain a 3rd op-type via .start_connect_ops().)

Not that interesting in and of itself; but what about concurrency? Answer:

Things only get interesting once 2+ op-types (in practice, as of this writing, it's 2 at most in all known use cases) can occur concurrently. Namely that's sending (started via .start_send_blob_ops() in this case) and receiving (.start_receive_blob_ops()). How does it work? Answer: Formally speaking, it's described in the appropriate class's doc header; in this case ipc::transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream. Informally the intuition behind it is as follows:

• In a full-duplex object (like this one), you can indeed send and receive at the same time. That is, e.g., you can interleave an async-receive-blob op and its eventual completion with invoking something send-related and its eventual completion (if applicable).
• Moreover you can use the API of op-type "receive" actually concurrently with the API of op-type "send." It is thread-safe, even though you're ostensily mutating the same object x. This is analogous to being able to concurrently read(fd, ...) and write(fd, ...) on the same OS handle fd for many socket types including TCP and Unix-domain-socket. This may, all in all, lead to significant perf savings in your application, if you have multiple threads available to handle sending and receiving. If you do need a mutex, you can have 1 mutex for send ops and 1 mutex for receive ops (assuming of course your algorithm doesn't involve the 2 directions' algorithms concurrently mutating the same outside-x data).

Do keep in mind: This applies to sync_io::X only – not its async-I/O counterpart X. E.g., you cannot do x.async_receive_blob() and x.send_blob() concurrently, in the latter case, but you can too do so in the former. With plain X you'd need to mutex-protect (or use strands or ...) x. However you can of course still have 2+ async operations outstanding simultaneously (e.g., initiating a send while an .async_receive_*(..., F) has not yet finished as signified by F()): you just cannot literally call mutating parts of x API concurrently.

See also

ipc::util::sync_io::Event_wait_func – details about hooking up your event loop to a sync_io-pattern-implementing Flow-IPC object.

ipc::util::sync_io::Asio_waitable_native_handle – take a look particularly if your event loop is built on boost.asio.

ipc::transport::Native_socket_stream internal source code: This exemplifies a fairly advanced "eat-our-own-dog-food" usage of a sync_io-pattern-implementing API (ipc::transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream in this case) in a multi-threaded setting (user's thread U and internal worker thread W in this case). In this case the event loop is a boost.asio one.

Todo:

Write an example of sync_io-pattern use with an old-school reactor-pattern event loop, using poll() and/or epoll_*().

See also

ipc::util::sync_io::Timer_event_emitter – how to hook up a boost.asio Timer inside a sync_io-pattern-implementing Flow-IPC object.

Typedef Documentation

Event_wait_func

using ipc::util::sync_io::Event_wait_func = typedef Function<void (Asio_waitable_native_handle* hndl_of_interest, bool ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv, Task_ptr&& on_active_ev_func)>

In sync_io pattern, concrete type storing user-supplied function invoked by pattern-implementing ipc::transport and ipc::session object to indicate interest in an I/O status event (writable, readable) for a particular Native_handle.

See also

ipc::util::sync_io doc header first. It explains the pattern in detail including example code for setting up an Event_wait_func.

Use in sync_io pattern

Suppose T is an ipc::transport or ipc::session object type, always in a "sync_io" sub-namespace, that operates according to the sync_io pattern. (For example, T might be transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream.) Then T::start_*ops(Event_wait_func&&), and/or a compatible template, must be invoked to begin unidirectional work of type X (e.g., start_*ops() might be start_send_blob_ops() or start_receive_native_handle_ops()) on a given T; the T memorizes the function until its destruction.

From that point on, the T might at times be unable to complete an operation (for example transport::sync_io::Native_socket_stream::send_blob()) synchronously due to a would-block condition on some internal Native_handle (for example, internally, the Unix domain stream socket in this case encountering would-block on a "::writemsg()" attempt). It shall then – synchronously, inside Native_socket_stream::send_blob() – invoke the saved Event_wait_func and pass to it the following arguments:

• hndl_of_interest: The native handle on which the user's own event loop must wait for an I/O event. In-depth tips on how to do so are below; but for now:
  • If your event loop is built on boost.asio, you may use hndl_of_interest->async_wait() directly.
  • Otherwise (if you're using [e]poll*() perhaps), obtain the raw handle as follows: hndl_of_interest->native_handle().m_native_handle. It can be input to poll(), epoll_ctl(), etc.
• ev_of_interest_snd_else_rcv: Which event it must await: true means "writable"; false means "readable."
  • What if the user's wait (such as epoll_wait()) encounters an error-occurred event instead (EPOLLERR)? Answer: They must in fact report this as-if the requested event (whether writable or readable) is active.
• on_active_ev_func: If (and, to avoid pointless perf loss, only if) the above-specified event is active, the user must invoke (*on_active_ev_func)() (without args and expecting no return value).
  • In terms of thread safety, and generally, one should consider this function a non-const member of T's sub-API. (The sub-API in question is the set of methods that correspond to unidirectional-operation of type X, where T::start_*ops() was invoked to kick things off. For example, in Native_socket_stream as used as a Blob_sender, that's its send_blob() and *end_sending() methods.) That is, (*on_active_ev_func)() may not be called concurrently to any T sub-API method (Native_socket_stream::send_blob(), *end_sending() in the recent example) or other (*on_active_ev_func)(). (*on_active_ev_func)() may well, itself, synchronously invoke Event_wait_func to indicate interest in a new event.

Naturally the key question arises: what, specifically, should a particular Event_wait_func (as passed-into a T::start_*ops()) do? Indeed, this requires great care on the sync_io pattern user's part.

Formally speaking the contract is as follows. Let F be the particular Event_wait_func.

1. Upon F() being called, it shall register – through a technique of the user's choice (a couple are explained below for your convenience) – the specified event as one of interest. The sooner this registration occurs, the more responsively T will behave.
2. It shall arrange, via that same technique, to do the following upon detecting the event (or hndl_of_interest becoming hosed, i.e., the error event). The sooner it does so, the more responsively T will behave.
   1. Deregister the specified event. Each Event_wait_func invocation indicates a one-off wait.
   2. Call (*on_active_ev_func)(). (It is best, for a little perf bump, for the user to save std::move(on_active_ev_func)) as opposed to a smart-pointer copy.)

Warning

Do not forget to deregister the event before (*on_active_ev_func)(). Failure to do so can easily result in processor pegging at best; or undefined behavior/assertion tripping. Worse still, if it's mere processor pegging, you might not notice it happening. E.g., if Native_socket_stream::send*() encounters would-block internally, it will register interest in writability of an internal handle; suppose when you report writability it is able to push-through any queued internal payload. Now it no longer needs writability; if informed of writability anyway, it will at best do nothing – leading to an infinite loop of user reporting writability and Native_socket_stream ignoring it. Or, if that is how Native_socket_stream is written, it will detect that a write event is being reported despite it not asking for this and log WARNING or even FATAL/abort program. With epoll_*(), EPOLLONESHOT and/or EPOLLET may be of aid, but be very careful.

Integrating with reactor-pattern poll() and similar

Suppose your application is using POSIX poll(). Typically a data structure will be maintained mirroring the fds[].events (events of interest) sub-argument to poll(); for example an unordered_map<> from FD (Native_handle::m_native_handle) to an enum { S_NONE, S_RD, S_WR, S_RD_WR }; or simply the fds[] array itself. (In the latter case lookup by FD may not be constant-time. However fds[].events does not need to be built from a mirroring structure ahead of each poll().)

When Event_wait_func F(hndl, snd_else_rcv, on_ev_func) is invoked, you will register the event:

1. If necessary, insert raw_hndl = hndl->native_handle().m_native_handle into the data structure, with no events of interest (which will change in the next step). If not necessary (already inserted, hence with a (different) event of interest already), continue to next step.
2. Depending on snd_else_rcv, change the events-of-interest enum NONE->RD, NONE->WR, WR->RD_WR, or RD->RD_WR. (If operating on an fd[].events directly, that's: fd.events = fd.events | POLLIN or fd.events = fd.events | POLLOUT.)
3. In some data structure keyed on, conceptually, the pair (raw_hndl, bool snd_else_rcv), record std::move(on_ev_func). Call it, say, ipc_events_map.

At some point in your reactor-pattern event loop, you are ready to call poll(). Construct fds[].events array if needed, or just use the long-term-maintained one, depending on how you've set this up. Call poll(). For each individual active event in an fds[].revents:

1. Construct the pair (raw_hndl, snd_else_rcv).
2. If it's not in ipc_events_map, no IPC-relevant event fired; it must be something relevant to other parts of your application (such as network traffic). Exit algorithm for now (until next poll()); the IPC-registered event is still being waited-on.
3. If it is in ipc_events_map:
   1. Remove it from there.
   2. Deregister the event w/r/t next poll():
      1. Depending on snd_else_rcv: Change the events-of-interest enum RD->NONE, WR->NONE, RD_WR->WR, or RD_WR->RD. (If operating on an fd[].events directly, that's fd.events = fd.events & ~POLLIN) or fd.events = fd.events & ~POLLOUT.)
      2. If the events-of-interest for the FD have become NONE (or fd.events == 0 if tracking it directly), delete the handle's entry from the events-mirroring structure (or events itself if tracking it directly).
   3. Invoke the saved (*on_ev_func)().

Note

While each F() invocation indicates one-off event interest, the handler (*on_ev_func)() will sometimes, or possibly frequently, re-indicate interest in the same event within its own handler. If done very carefully, it might be possible to detect this situation by deferring the editing of events or the mirroring structure until (*on_ev_func)() finishes; possibly this would net to making no change to the events-of-interest structure. This could save some processor cycles. I (ygoldfel) would recommend only getting into that if compelling perf savings evidence appears.

You might notice hndl is a pointer to Asio_waitable_native_handle, but you simply get raw_hndl out of it and forget about the rest of *hndl. Why not just provide raw_hndl to you? Answer: It is useful when not integrating with a reactor-pattern event loop a-la poll() or similar but rather when integrating with a boost.asio event loop. See "Integrating with boost.asio" below.

What about epoll_*()?

In Linux epoll_*() is considered superior (its man page at least says that, when used in non-EPOLLET mode, it is a "faster" poll()). We leave the exercise of how to apply the above suggestions (for poll()) to epoll_*() to the reader. Briefly: Essentially epoll_ctl() lets the kernel track a long-running fds[].events sub-array, with add/remove/modify operations specified by the user as syscalls. However, it's not possible to simply say "I am interested in FD X, event writable"; the events-of-interest per FD are still specified as an ORing of EPOLLIN and/or EPOLLOUT in one per-FD entry, whereas Event_wait_func is finer-grained than that. It is not possible to iterate through the kernel-stored events-of-interest set or obtain the existing events bit-mask so as to then |= or &= it. Therefore a mirroring data structure (such as the aforementioned unordered_map<> from FD to rd/wr/rd-wr) may be necessary in practice. In my (ygoldfel) experience using such a mirroring thing is typical in any case.

One tip: EPOLLONESHOT may be quite useful: It means you can limit your code to just doing epoll_ctl(...ADD) without requiring the counterpart epoll_ctl(...DEL) once the event does fire. (EPOLLET may be usable to decrease the number of epoll-ctl calls needed further, but as of this writing we haven't investigated this sufficiently to make a statement.)

However EPOLLONESHOT pertains to the entire descriptor, not one specific waited-on event (read or write). Therefore this optimization is helpful only if .events is being set to EPOLLIN or EPOLLOUT – not EPOLLIN | EPOLLOUT. Be careful.

Integrating with boost.asio

Suppose your application is using boost.asio (possibly with flow.async to manage threads), with a flow::util::Task_engine::run() comprising the event loop, in proactor pattern fashion. (We would recommend just that, preferring it to an old-school reactor-pattern via [e]poll*() directly.) Your loop is asynchronously expressed, but you can still use the sync_io pattern to graft Flow-IPC operations into it, so that they are invoked synchronously, when you want, in the exact thread you want. In fact, doing so is significantly simpler than integrating with a reactor-style [e]poll*(). That is because, conceptually, each Event_wait_func invocation is essentially expressing the following boost.asio operation:

some_low_level_transport.async_wait(wait_write, // (or `wait_read`.)
                                    [...](const Error_code& err_code)
{
  // Can do I/O, or error?  Do I/O, or handle error.
  // ...If no error then possibly even at some point continue the async-op chain...
  same_or_other_low_level_transport.async_wait(wait_write, // (or `wait_read`.)
                                               ...);
}

Because of that you have to code essentially none of the stuff above (pertaining to a reactor-style [e]poll*() loop): no manual registering/deregistering, wondering how to handle error-event, etc. etc.

So what to do, specifically? It is quite straightforward. Suppose you're got Task_engine E doing E.run() as your event loop. (Any flow::async::*_loop does that too, just internally once you do loop.start().) E.g., if you've got TCP sockets attached to E, you might be doing m_tcp_sock.async_read_some(..., [](const Error_code& err_code) { ... }; and so on.

When Event_wait_func F(hndl, snd_else_rcv, on_ev_func) is invoked, you will simply do:

hndl->async_wait(snd_else_rcv ? Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_write
                              : Asio_waitable_native_handle::Base::wait_read,
                 [on_ev_func = std::move(on_ev_func)](const Error_code& err_code)
{
  if (err_code != boost::asio::error::operation_aborted)
  {
    (*on_ev_func)(); // Note: err_code is disregarded.  Whether it's readable/writable or hosed, must invoke.
  }
  // else { Stuff is shutting down; do absolutely nothing!  SOP on operation_aborted generally. }
}

Basically, Flow-IPC wants to do an async_wait()... so you do it for Flow-IPC, being the master of your (boost.asio) domain (so to speak).

hndl is an Asio_waitable_native_handle*. Asio_waitable_native_handle is a razor-thin wrapper around a boost.asio posix::descriptor which itself is a thin wrapper around a native handle (FD). It has boost.asio-supplied .async_wait(). However, and this is a key point:

To make it work, before invoking T::start_*ops(), you must supply your execution context/executor – usually a boost.asio Task_engine (a/k/a boost::asio::io_contexst) or strand (boost::asio::io_context::strand) – w/r/t which you plan to .async_wait() down the line. This is done via T::replace_event_wait_handles(), an otherwise optional call. If using flow.async, this might be (e.g.):

flow::async::Single_thread_task_loop m_your_single_threaded_event_loop;
ipc::transport::Native_socket_stream m_sock_stream;
// ...
m_sock_stream.replace_event_wait_handles([this]() -> auto
{
  return ipc::util::async_io::Asio_waitable_native_handle
           (*(m_your_single_threaded_event_loop.task_engine()));
});
m_sock_stream.start_send_blob_ops(F); // F is your Event_wait_func.

Note

As explained in "Integrating with reactor-pattern..." above, hndl is a boost.asio I/O object, as opposed to just a Native_handle or even Native_handle::handle_t, specifically for the boost.asio integration use case. If not integrating with boost.asio, start_*ops() is to be used without preceding it by replace_event_wait_handles(), and hndl->native_handle() is the only meaningful part of *hndl, with .async_wait() being meaningless and unused. Conversely, if integrating with boost.asio, hndl->native_handle() itself should not be required in your code, while .async_wait() is the only meaningful aspect of *hndl.

Definition at line 798 of file sync_io_fwd.hpp.

Task_ptr

using ipc::util::sync_io::Task_ptr = typedef boost::shared_ptr<Task>

Short-hand for ref-counted pointer to a Function<> that takes no arguments and returns nothing; in particular used for on_active_ev_func arg of sync_io::Event_wait_func.

Rationale

This is defined here because of its central role in sync_io::Event_wait_func (see that doc header).

Why wrap it in a smart pointer at all as opposed to passing around Function<>s as objects (particularly as arg to Event_wait_func)? Answer: Performance. Our sync_io pattern is intended for the highly perf-conscious user, to the extent they'd forego the significantly easier to use async-I/O pattern just because that would involve involuntary (from the user's point of view) thread creation and context switching; copying or moving polymorphic functors, including all their captures, is an unnecessary expense.

In that case why shared_ptr, not unique_ptr, given that it adds potential ref-counting behind the scenes? Answer: unique_ptr would have been nice; however it is likely the user (and/or internal Flow-IPC code) will want to lambda-capture the wrapped Task, and capturing movable-but-not-copyable types like unique_ptr does not compile (as of C++17), even if one never copies the capturing lambda. One would need to upgrade to shared_ptr to capture, and that is annoying.

Note

That said it is recommended that one std::move() any Task_ptr whenever possible, such as when capturing it in a lambda (e.g., [task_ptr = std::move(task_ptr)). This advice applies generally to all shared_ptr captures (*"whenever possible"* being important), but this is just a reminder.

Definition at line 585 of file sync_io_fwd.hpp.

Function Documentation

operator<<()

std::ostream & ipc::util::sync_io::operator<<	(	std::ostream &	os,
		const Timer_event_emitter &	val
	)

Prints string representation of the given Timer_event_emitter to the given ostream.

Parameters

os	Stream to which to write.
val	Object to serialize.

Returns

os.

Definition at line 131 of file timer_ev_emitter.cpp.