How guys from linux make /dev files. You can write to them and immediately they're erased.
I can imagine some program which constantly read some dev file:
FILE *fp;
char buffer[255];
int result;
fp = fopen(fileName, "r");
if (!fp) {
printf("Open file error");
return;
}
while (1)
{
result = fscanf(fp, "%254c", buffer);
printf("%s", buffer);
memset(buffer, 0, 255);
fflush(stdout);
sleep(1);
}
fclose(fp);
But how to delete content in there? Closing a file and opening them once again in "w" mode is not the way how they done it, because you can do i.e. cat > /dev/tty
What are files? Files are names in a directory structure which denote objects. When you open a file like /home/joe/foo.txt, the operating system creates an object in memory representing that file (or finds an existing one, if the file is already open), binds a descriptor to it which is returned and then operations on that file descriptor (like read and write) are directed, through the object, into file system code which manipulates the file's representation on disk.
Device entries are also names in the directory structure. When you open some /dev/foo, the operating system creates an in-memory object representing the device, or finds an existing one (in which case there may be an error if the device does not support multiple opens!). If successful, it binds a new file descriptor to the device obejct and returns that descriptor to your program. The object is configured in such a way that the operations like read and write on the descriptor are directed to call into the specific device driver for device foo, and correspond to doing some kind of I/O with that device.
Such entries in /dev/ are not files; a better name for them is "device nodes" (a justification for which is the name of the mknod command). Only when programmers and sysadmins are speaking very loosely do they call them "device files".
When you do cat > /dev/tty, there isn't anything which is "erasing" data "on the other end". Well, not exactly. Basically, cat is calling write on a descriptor, and this results in a chain of function calls which ends up somewhere in the kernel's tty subsystem. The data is handed off to a tty driver which will send the data into a serial port, or socket, or into a console device which paints characters on the screen or whatever. Virtual terminals like xterm use a pair of devices: a master and slave pseudo-tty. If a tty is connected to a pseudo-tty device, then cat > /dev/tty writes go through a kind of "trombone": they bubble up on the master side of the pseudo-tty, where in fact there is a while (1) loop in some user-space C program receiving the bytes, like from a pipe. That program is xterm (or whatever); it removes the data and draws the characters in its window, scrolls the window, etc.
Unix is designed so that devices (tty, printer, etc) are accessed like everything else (as a file) so the files in /dev are special pseudo files that represent the device within the file-system.
You don't want to delete the contents of such a device file, and honestly it could be dangerous for your system if you write to them willy-nilly without understanding exactly what you are doing.
Device files are not normal files, if "normal file" refers to an arbitrary sequence of bytes, often stored on a medium. But not all files are normal files.
More broadly, files are an abstraction referring to a system service and/or resource, a service being something you can send information to for some purpose (e.g., for a normal file, write data to storage) and a resource being something you request data from for some purpose (e.g., for a normal file, read data from storage). C defines a standard for interfacing with such a service/resource.
Device files fit within this definition, but they do not not necessarily match my more specific "normal file" examples of reading and writing to and from storage. You can directly create dev files, but the only meaningful reason to do so is within the context of a kernel module. More often you may refer to them (e.g., with udev), keeping in mind they are actually created by the kernel and represent an interface with the kernel. Beyond that, the functioning of the interface differs from dev file to dev file.
I've also found quiet nice explanation:
http://lwn.net/images/pdf/LDD3/ch18.pdf
Related
Someone reports that given a stream of strings on the serial port which is pipelined to the OCaml program below, the output of the program is not continuous, but instead it appears in chunks (of a few tens of lines), as if buffered.
What can be the cause of the non-continuous output?
(The output buffer should be flushed after each new line due to the use of '%!'. So this shouldn't be the cause, right?)
let tp = ref 0
let get_next_entry ic =
try
let (ts, pred, v) = Scanf.fscanf ic " #%d %s#(%d)\n" (fun x y z -> (x,y,z)) in
Printf.printf "at timepoint %d (timestamp %d): %s(%d)\n%!" !tp ts pred v;
incr tp;
true
with End_of_file ->
false
let _ =
while get_next_entry stdin do
()
done
The OCaml version used is 4.05.
It is a threefold problem. From the least likely to the most likely.
The glitching output
It is all in the eye of the beholder, as how the program output will look like depends on the environment in which it is run, i.e., on a program that runs your program and renders this on a visual device. In other words, it involves a lot of variables that are beyond the context of this program.
With that said, let me explain what flush means for the printf function. The printf facility relies on buffered channels. And each channel is roughly a pair of a buffer and system-specific file descriptor. When someone (including printf) outputs to a channel, the information first goes into the buffer and remains there until the next portion of information overrides the buffer (i.e., there is no more space in the buffer) or until the flush function is called explicitly. Then the buffer is flushed, which means that the information in the buffer is transferred to the operating system (e.g., using the write system call or library function).
What happens afterward is system dependent. If the file descriptor was associated with a regular file, then you might expect that the information will be passed to it entirely(though the file system has its own hierarchy of caches, so there're caveats also). If the descriptor was associated with a Unix-style shell process through a pipe, then it will go into the pipe's buffer, extracted from it by the shell and printed using a terminal interface, usually fulfilled with some terminal emulator. By default shells are line-buffered, so the line should be printed as a whole unless the user of the shell changes its parameters somehow.
Basically, I hope you get the idea, it is not your program which is actually manipulating with the terminal and lighting up pixels on your monitors. Your program is just outputting data and some other program is receiving this data and drawing it on the screen. And this some other program (a terminal, or terminal emulator, e.g., minicom) is making this output glitchy, not your program. Your program is doing its best to be printed correctly - full line or nothing.
Your program is glitching
And it is. The in_channel is also buffered, so it will accumulate a few bytes before calling sprintf. Therefore, you can just read from the buffered channel and expect a realtime response to it. The most reliable way for you would be to use the Unix module and process the input using your own buffering.
The glitching input
Finally, the input program can also give you the information in chunks. This is especially true for serial interfaces, so make sure that you have correctly set up your terminal interface using the Unix.tcsetattr function. In particular, when your program is blocked on the input, the operating system may decide not to wake it up on each arrived character or line. This behavior is controlled by the terminal interface (see the Canonical and Non-canonical modes. If your input doesn't have newlines, then you shall use the non-canonical mode).
Finally, the device itself could be acting jittering, and if you have an oscilloscope nearby you can observe the signals it is sending. And make sure that you have configured your serial port as prescribed in the user manual of your device.
One possibility is that fscanf is waiting until it sees everything it's looking for.
I need to understand which files consumes iops of my hard disc. Just using "strace" will not solve my problem. I want to know, which files are really written to disc, not to page cache. I tried to use "systemtap", but I cannot understand how to find out which files (filenames or inodes) consumes my iops. Is there any tools, which will solve my problem?
Yeah, you can definitely use SystemTap for tracing that. When upper-layer (usually, a VFS subsystem) wants to issue I/O operation, it will call submit_bio and generic_make_request functions. Note that these doesn't necessary mean a single physical I/O operation. For example, writes from adjacent sectors can be merged by I/O scheduler.
The trick is how to determine file path name in generic_make_request. It is quite simple for reads, as this function will be called in the same context as read() call. Writes are usually asynchronous, so write() will simply update page cache entry and mark it as dirty, while submit_bio gets called by one of the writeback kernel threads which doesn't have info of original calling process:
Writes can be deduced by looking at page reference in bio structure -- it has mapping of struct address_space. struct file which corresponds to an open file also contains f_mapping which points to the same address_space instance and it also points to dentry containing name of the file (this can be done by using task_dentry_path)
So we would need two probes: one to capture attempts to read/write a file and save path and address_space into associative array and second to capture generic_make_request calls (this is performed by probe ioblock.request).
Here is an example script which counts IOPS:
// maps struct address_space to path name
global paths;
// IOPS per file
global iops;
// Capture attempts to read and write by VFS
probe kernel.function("vfs_read"),
kernel.function("vfs_write") {
mapping = $file->f_mapping;
// Assemble full path name for running task (task_current())
// from open file "$file" of type "struct file"
path = task_dentry_path(task_current(), $file->f_path->dentry,
$file->f_path->mnt);
paths[mapping] = path;
}
// Attach to generic_make_request()
probe ioblock.request {
for (i = 0; i < $bio->bi_vcnt ; i++) {
// Each BIO request may have more than one page
// to write
page = $bio->bi_io_vec[i]->bv_page;
mapping = #cast(page, "struct page")->mapping;
iops[paths[mapping], rw] <<< 1;
}
}
// Once per second drain iops statistics
probe timer.s(1) {
println(ctime());
foreach([path+, rw] in iops) {
printf("%3d %s %s\n", #count(iops[path, rw]),
bio_rw_str(rw), path);
}
delete iops
}
This example script is works for XFS, but needs to be updated to support AIO and volume managers (including btrfs). Plus I'm not sure how it will handle metadata reads and writes, but it is a good start ;)
If you want to know more on SystemTap you can check out my book: http://myaut.github.io/dtrace-stap-book/kernel/async.html
Maybe iotop gives you a hint about which process are doing I/O, in consequence you have an idea about the related files.
iotop --only
the --only option is used to see only processes or threads actually doing I/O, instead of showing all processes or threads
I use klogctl (or syslog) to collect kernel log messages, by repeatedly fetching their output.
I would like to know if it's possible to obtain a file descriptor associated to the kernel log, so that I can use select to watch it (I am already watching other file descriptors associated to udev monitors with udev_monitor_get_fd, and it would be convenient to use select for everything)
For kernel version higher than 3.5, /dev/kmsg contains all the kernel logs.
It is opened as follows:
int fk = open("/dev/kmsg", O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
Only fetching the latest kernel messages from some specific point in the program is possible by seeking to the end of this file at this point:
lseek(fk, 0, SEEK_END);
Then fk is added to a file descriptor set the usual way.
Your best bet is to configure rsyslogd to log all the messages to a fifo (mkfifo) of your choice, then you can open and select to read from that.
I notice that for serial devices, e.g. /dev/ttyUSB0, multiple processes can open the device but only one process gets the bytes (whichever reads them first).
However, for the Linux input API, e.g. /dev/input/event0, multiple processes can open the device, and all of the processes are able to read the input events.
My current goal:
I'd like to write a driver for several multi-position switches (e.g. like a slider switch with 3 or 4 possible positions), where apps can get a notification of any switch position changes. Ideally I'd like to use the Linux input API, however it seems that the Linux input API has no support for the concept of multi-position switches. So I'm looking at making a custom driver with similar capabilities to the Linux input API.
Two questions:
From a driver design point-of-view, why is there that difference in behaviour between Linux input API and Linux serial devices? I reckon it could be useful for multiple processes to all be able to open one serial port and all listen to incoming bytes.
What is a good way to write a Linux character device driver so that it's like the Linux input API, so multiple processes can open the device and read all the data?
The distinction is partly historical and partly due to the different expectation models.
The event subsystem is designed for unidirectional notification of simple events from multiple writers into the system with very little (or no) configuration options.
The tty subsystem is intended for bidirectional end-to-end communication of potentially large amounts of data and provides a reasonably flexible (albeit fairly baroque) configuration mechanism.
Historically, the tty subsystem was the main mechanism of communicating with the system: you plug your "teletype" into a serial port and bits went in and out. Different teletypes from different vendors used different protocols and thus the termios interface was born. To make the system perform well in a multi-user context, buffering was added in the kernel (and made configurable). The expectation model of the tty subsystem is that of a point-to-point link between moderately intelligent endpoints who will agree on what the data passing between them will look like.
While there are circumstances where "single writer, multiple readers" would make sense in the tty subsystem (GPS receiver connected to a serial port, continually reporting its position, for instance), that's not the main purpose of the system. But you can easily accomplish this "multiple readers" in userspace.
The event system on the other hand, is basically an interrupt mechanism intended for things like mice and keyboards. Unlike teletypes, input devices are unidirectional and provide little or no control over the data they produce. There is also little point in buffering the data. Nobody is going to be interested in where the mouse moved ten minutes ago.
I hope that answers your first question.
For your second question: "it depends". What do you want to accomplish? And what is the "longevity" of the data? You also have to ask yourself whether it makes sense to put the complexity in the kernel or if it wouldn't be better to put it in userspace.
Getting data out to multiple readers isn't particularly difficult. You could create a receive buffer per reader and fill each of them as the data comes in. Things get a little more interesting if the data comes in faster than the readers can consume it, but even that is mostly a solved problem. Look at the network stack for inspiration!
If your device is simple and just produces events, maybe you just want to be an input driver?
Your second question is a lot more difficult to answer without knowing more about what you want to accomplish.
Update after you added your specific goal:
When I do position switches, I usually just create a character device and implement poll and read. If you want to be fancy and have a lot of switches, you could do mmap but I wouldn't bother.
Userspace just opens your /dev/foo and reads the current state and starts polling. When your switches change state, you just wake up the readers and they they'll read again. All your readers will wake up, they'll all read the new state and everyone will be happy.
Be careful to only wake up readers when your switches are 'settled'. Many position switches are very noisy and they'll bounce around a fair bit.
In other words: I would ignore the input system altogether for this. As you surmise, position switches are not really "inputs".
How a character device handles these kinds of semantics is completely up to the driver to define and implement.
It would certainly be possible, for example, to implement a driver for a serial device that will deliver all read data to every process that has the character driver open. And it would also be possible to implement an input device driver that delivers events to only one process, whichever one is queued up to receive the latest event. It's all a matter of coding the appropriate implementation.
The difference is that it all comes down to a simple question: "what makes sense". For a serial device, it's been decided that it makes more sense to handle any read data by a single process. For an input device, it's been decided that it makes more sense to deliver all input events to every process that has the input device open. It would be reasonable to expect that, for example, one process might only care about a particular input event, say pointer button #3 pressed, while another process wants to process all pointer motion events. So, in this situation, it might make more sense to distribute all input events to all concerned parties.
I am ignoring some side issues, for simplicity, like in the situation of serial data being delivered to all reading processes what should happen when one of them stops reading from the device. That's also something that would be factored in, when deciding how to implement the semantics of a particular device.
What is a good way to write a Linux character device driver so that it's like the Linux input API, so multiple processes can open the device and read all the data?
See the .open member of struct file_operations for the char device. Whenever userspace opens the device, then the .open function is called. It can add the open file to a list of open files for the device (and then .release removes it).
The char device data struct should most likely use a kernel struct list_head to keep a list of open files:
struct my_dev_data {
...
struct cdev cdev;
struct list_head file_open_list;
...
}
Data for each file:
struct file_data {
struct my_dev_data *dev_data;
struct list_head file_open_list;
...
}
In the .open function, add the open file to dev_data->file_open_list (use a mutex to protect these operations as needed):
static int my_dev_input_open(struct inode * inode, struct file * filp)
{
struct my_dev_data *dev_data;
dev_data = container_of(inode->i_cdev, struct my_dev_data, cdev);
...
/* Allocate memory for file data and channel data */
file_data = devm_kzalloc(&dev_data->pdev->dev,
sizeof(struct file_data), GFP_KERNEL);
...
/* Add open file data to list */
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&file_data->file_open_list);
list_add(&file_data->file_open_list, &dev_data->file_open_list);
...
file_data->dev_data = dev_data;
filp->private_data = file_data;
}
The .release function should remove the open file from dev_data->file_open_list, and release the memory of file_data.
Now that the .open and .release functions maintain the list of open files, it is possible for all open files to read data. Two possible strategies:
A separate read buffer for each open file. When data is received, it is copied into the buffers of all open files.
A single read buffer for the device, but a separate read pointer for each open file. Data can be freed from the buffer once it has been read through all open files.
Serial to input/event
You could try to look into serial mouse driver source code.
This seem to be what you're searching for: from a TTYSx build a input/event device.
Simplier: creating a server, instead of a driver.
Historically, the 1st character device I remember is /dev/lp0.
To be able to write on it from many source, without overlap or other conflict,
a LPR server was wrotten.
To share a device, you have to
open this device in exclusive (rw) mode.
Create a socket (un*x or TCP) to listen on
redirect request from socket's clients to the device and maybe
store device status (from reading device's answers)
send device status to socket's clients when required.
I'm trying to create a large empty file on a VFAT partition by using the `dd' command in an embedded linux box:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/flash/file bs=1M count=1 seek=1023
The intention was to skip the first 1023 blocks and write only 1 block at the end of the file, which should be very quick on a native EXT3 partition, and it indeed is. However, this operation turned out to be quite slow on a VFAT partition, along with the following message:
lowmem_shrink:: nr_to_scan=128, gfp_mask=d0, other_free=6971, min_adj=16
// ... more `lowmem_shrink' messages
Another attempt was to fopen() a file on the VFAT partition and then fseek() to the end to write the data, which has also proved slow, along with the same messages from the kernel.
So basically, is there a quick way to create the file on the VFAT partition (without traversing the first 1023 blocks)?
Thanks.
Why are VFAT "skipping" writes so slow ?
Unless the VFAT filesystem driver were made to "cheat" in this respect, creating large files on FAT-type filesystems will always take a long time. The driver, to comply with FAT specification, will have to allocate all data blocks and zero-initialize them, even if you "skip" the writes. That's because of the "cluster chaining" FAT does.
The reason for that behaviour is FAT's inability to support either:
UN*X-style "holes" in files (aka "sparse files")
that's what you're creating on ext3 with your testcase - a file with no data blocks allocated to the first 1GB-1MB of it, and a single 1MB chunk of actually committed, zero-initialized blocks) at the end.
NTFS-style "valid data length" information.
On NTFS, a file can have uninitialized blocks allocated to it, but the file's metadata will keep two size fields - one for the total size of the file, another for the number of bytes actually written to it (from the beginning of the file).
Without a specification supporting either technique, the filesystem would always have to allocate and zerofill all "intermediate" data blocks if you skip a range.
Also remember that on ext3, the technique you used does not actually allocate blocks to the file (apart from the last 1MB). If you require the blocks preallocated (not just the size of the file set large), you'll have to perform a full write there as well.
How could the VFAT driver be modified to deal with this ?
At the moment, the driver uses the Linux kernel function cont_write_begin() to start even an asynchronous write to a file; this function looks like:
/*
* For moronic filesystems that do not allow holes in file.
* We may have to extend the file.
*/
int cont_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned flags,
struct page **pagep, void **fsdata,
get_block_t *get_block, loff_t *bytes)
{
struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
unsigned blocksize = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
unsigned zerofrom;
int err;
err = cont_expand_zero(file, mapping, pos, bytes);
if (err)
return err;
zerofrom = *bytes & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
if (pos+len > *bytes && zerofrom & (blocksize-1)) {
*bytes |= (blocksize-1);
(*bytes)++;
}
return block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, flags, pagep, get_block);
}
That is a simple strategy but also a pagecache trasher (your log messages are a consequence of the call to cont_expand_zero() which does all the work, and is not asynchronous). If the filesystem were to split the two operations - one task to do the "real" write, and another one to do the zero filling, it'd appear snappier.
The way this could be achieved while still using the default linux filesystem utility interfaces were by internally creating two "virtual" files - one for the to-be-zerofilled area, and another for the actually-to-be-written data. The real file's directory entry and FAT cluster chain would only be updated once the background task is actually complete, by linking its last cluster with the first one of the "zerofill file" and the last cluster of that one with the first one of the "actual write file". One would also want to go for a directio write to do the zerofilling, in order to avoid trashing the pagecache.
Note: While all this is technically possible for sure, the question is how worthwhile would it be to do such a change ? Who needs this operation all the time ? What would side effects be ?
The existing (simple) code is perfectly acceptable for smaller skipping writes, you won't really notice its presence if you create a 1MB file and write a single byte at the end. It'll bite you only if you go for filesizes on the order of the limits of what the FAT filesystem allows you to do.
Other options ...
In some situations, the task at hand involves two (or more) steps:
freshly format (e.g.) a SD card with FAT
put one or more big files onto it to "pre-fill" the card
(app-dependent, optional)
pre-populate the files, or
put a loopback filesystem image into them
One of the cases I've worked on we've folded the first two - i.e. modified mkdosfs to pre-allocate/ pre-create files when making the (FAT32) filesystem. That's pretty simple, when writing the FAT tables just create allocated cluster chains instead of clusters filled with the "free" marker. It's also got the advantage that the data blocks are guaranteed to be contiguous, in case your app benefits from this. And you can decide to make mkdosfs not clear the previous contents of the data blocks. If you know, for example, that one of your preparation steps involves writing the entire data anyway or doing ext3-in-file-on-FAT (pretty common thing - linux appliance, sd card for data exchange with windows app/gui), then there's no need to zero out anything / double-write (once with zeroes, once with whatever-else). If your usecase fits this (i.e. formatting the card is a useful / normal step of the "initialize it for use" process anyway) then try it out; a suitably-modified mkdosfs is part of TomTom's dosfsutils sources, see mkdosfs.c search for the -N command line option handling.
When talking about preallocation, as mentioned, there's also posix_fallocate(). Currently on Linux when using FAT, this will do essentially the same as a manual dd ..., i.e. wait for the zerofill. But the specification of the function doesn't mandate it being synchronous. The block allocation (FAT cluster chain generation) would have to be done synchronously, but the VFAT on-disk dirent size update and the data block zerofills could be backgrounded / delayed (i.e. either done at low-prio in background or only done if explicitly requested via fdsync() / sync() so that the app can e.g. alloc blocks, write the contents with non-zeroes itself ...). That's technique / design though; I'm not aware of anyone having done that kernel modification yet, if only for experimenting.