GNU bug report logs - #9264
24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 9264 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 9264 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:25:56 +0800

After running emacs for *some* time(like one or two days), call-process
starts to fail:

  (call-process "ls")

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
  call-process("ls")
  eval((call-process "ls") nil)
  eval-last-sexp-1(nil)
  ad-Orig-eval-last-sexp(nil)
  eval-last-sexp(nil)
  call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)

What exactly does this mean? 

In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7600)
 of 2011-06-28 on 3249CTO
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.5) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/build/include'

-- 
William

http://xwl.appspot.com

Message #8 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 04:42:34 -0400

> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:25:56 +0800
> 
> After running emacs for *some* time(like one or two days), call-process
> starts to fail:
> 
>   (call-process "ls")
> 
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
>   call-process("ls")
>   eval((call-process "ls") nil)
>   eval-last-sexp-1(nil)
>   ad-Orig-eval-last-sexp(nil)
>   eval-last-sexp(nil)
>   call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
> 
> What exactly does this mean? 

That something is broken inside Emacs, but Emacs doesn't tell what.

Did you build Emacs yourself?  If so, could you please add a call to
GetLastError to sys_pipe (defined on w32.c), after the _pipe call, and
when it fails like that, see which error code it returns?

> In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7600)
>  of 2011-06-28 on 3249CTO

This is quite old, suggest to update to a newer version, to avoid
wasting energy on an old bug that was already fixed.

Message #11 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:05:28 +0800

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

   That something is broken inside Emacs, but Emacs doesn't tell what.

   Did you build Emacs yourself?  If so, could you please add a call to
   GetLastError to sys_pipe (defined on w32.c), after the _pipe call, and
   when it fails like that, see which error code it returns?

I was using Sean Sieger's build.  Anyway, i update bzr repo to
"revno: 105425".  Made following change:

=== modified file 'src/w32.c'
--- src/w32.c	2011-07-09 07:00:58 +0000
+++ src/w32.c	2011-08-10 01:26:51 +0000
@@ -5218,6 +5218,7 @@
      pipes into binary mode; we will do text mode translation ourselves
      if required.  */
   rc = _pipe (phandles, 0, _O_NOINHERIT | _O_BINARY);
+  printf("xwl: error = %d\n", GetLastError ());

   if (rc == 0)
     {

In gdb, the error number printed is always zero, even when this
file-error comes up.  But it seems it would first give this error: 

  (file-error "Spawning child process" "resource temporarily unavailable")

After a while, starts to give following error: 

  (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")

Is it reaching some process number limit? 

   > In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7600)
   >  of 2011-06-28 on 3249CTO

   This is quite old, suggest to update to a newer version, to avoid
   wasting energy on an old bug that was already fixed.

BTW, on my laptop, same OS, with a build back to Feburary, it has
no such problem.

--
William

http://xwl.appspot.com

Message #14 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:44:44 -0400

> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:05:28 +0800
> 
> === modified file 'src/w32.c'
> --- src/w32.c	2011-07-09 07:00:58 +0000
> +++ src/w32.c	2011-08-10 01:26:51 +0000
> @@ -5218,6 +5218,7 @@
>       pipes into binary mode; we will do text mode translation ourselves
>       if required.  */
>    rc = _pipe (phandles, 0, _O_NOINHERIT | _O_BINARY);
> +  printf("xwl: error = %d\n", GetLastError ());
> 
>    if (rc == 0)
>      {
> 
> In gdb, the error number printed is always zero, even when this
> file-error comes up.  But it seems it would first give this error: 
> 
>   (file-error "Spawning child process" "resource temporarily unavailable")
> 
> After a while, starts to give following error: 
> 
>   (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
> 
> Is it reaching some process number limit? 

Not sure yet, but it sounds unlikely (the limit is on simultaneous
processes).  Do you see the value of rc becoming negative at some
point?  If so, does _pipe return a negative value, or does it become
negative in this fragment below the call to _pipe?

      if (phandles[0] >= MAXDESC || phandles[1] >= MAXDESC)
	{
	  _close (phandles[0]);
	  _close (phandles[1]);
	  rc = -1;
	}

If the latter, it sounds like we are not closing the file handles
somewhere.

>    > In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7600)
>    >  of 2011-06-28 on 3249CTO
> 
>    This is quite old, suggest to update to a newer version, to avoid
>    wasting energy on an old bug that was already fixed.

That's a good clue, thanks.  I will try to look into the changes since
then.

Message #17 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:25:31 +0800

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

   Not sure yet, but it sounds unlikely (the limit is on simultaneous
   processes).  Do you see the value of rc becoming negative at some
   point?  If so, does _pipe return a negative value, or does it become
   negative in this fragment below the call to _pipe?

         if (phandles[0] >= MAXDESC || phandles[1] >= MAXDESC)
       {
         _close (phandles[0]);
         _close (phandles[1]);
         rc = -1;
       }

   If the latter, it sounds like we are not closing the file handles
   somewhere.

I put a printf after "rc = -1".  I can see lots of logs from there.
_pipe never returns a negative value.

-- 
William

http://xwl.appspot.com

Message #20 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:34:48 -0400

> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:25:31 +0800
> 
>          if (phandles[0] >= MAXDESC || phandles[1] >= MAXDESC)
>        {
>          _close (phandles[0]);
>          _close (phandles[1]);
>          rc = -1;
>        }
> 
>    If the latter, it sounds like we are not closing the file handles
>    somewhere.
> 
> I put a printf after "rc = -1".  I can see lots of logs from there.
> _pipe never returns a negative value.

We are close.  This probably means that we are not closing file
descriptors somewhere.  When these printf's about rc == -1 start to
appear, can you look at all the elements of the fd_info[] array (there
are 64 of them), and see which flags are set on most of the elements,
and whether or not the `cp' member is non-NULL?  This information
might give a clue as to what functionality is stealing the file
descriptors and not releasing them.

Thanks.

Message #23 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:32:26 +0800

2011/8/11 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:

> We are close.  This probably means that we are not closing file
> descriptors somewhere.  When these printf's about rc == -1 start to
> appear, can you look at all the elements of the fd_info[] array (there
> are 64 of them), and see which flags are set on most of the elements,
> and whether or not the `cp' member is non-NULL?  This information
> might give a clue as to what functionality is stealing the file
> descriptors and not releasing them.

Here is the fd_info array.  Most flags are 273, 274 or 0x111, 0x112, namely
FILE_PIPE read and write?  And most cp member is NULL, does that imply those are
not properly released ones?

$1 = { {flags = 0, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0 },
 {flags = 0, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 0, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 1559, hnd = 0x234, cp = 0x13b1200},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x358, cp = 0x13b1518},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x13b14c0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x13b1468},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x13b1410},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x13b13b8},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x13b1570},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 273, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0},
 {flags = 274, hnd = 0x0, cp = 0x0}}

-William

Message #26 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:22 +0300

It seems I'm able to reproduce it easily now.

1. emacs -Q
2. eval below:

(progn
  (dotimes (i 50)
    (start-process "hi" nil "ls")
    (message "%d" i)
    ;(sleep-for 1)
    ))

It gives an error:
   while: Spawning child process: resource temporarily unavailable

The same code works well under linux, i can even set counter to 1000,
just takes some time to finish.


-William

Message #29 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:04:01 +0300

> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:22 +0300
> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> It seems I'm able to reproduce it easily now.
> 
> 1. emacs -Q
> 2. eval below:
> 
> (progn
>   (dotimes (i 50)
>     (start-process "hi" nil "ls")
>     (message "%d" i)
>     ;(sleep-for 1)
>     ))
> 
> It gives an error:
>    while: Spawning child process: resource temporarily unavailable

Right, thanks.  I will look into this, if no one beats me to it.

Message #32 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:21:21 +0300

> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:55:22 +0300
> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> It seems I'm able to reproduce it easily now.
> 
> 1. emacs -Q
> 2. eval below:
> 
> (progn
>   (dotimes (i 50)
>     (start-process "hi" nil "ls")
>     (message "%d" i)
>     ;(sleep-for 1)
>     ))
> 
> It gives an error:
>    while: Spawning child process: resource temporarily unavailable

I'm not sure the problem reproduced by this snippet is the same one as
what you reported originally.  In the above snippet, the problem
happens because we never give Emacs a chance to take note of the
processes that exit, and free the handles used for the 2 pipes we open
for each subprocess.  If I uncomment the sleep-for call, the program
runs to completion with no problems, even if I replace 1 with 0.1.

The underlying issue is that the Windows build of Emacs is limited to
31 simultaneous subprocesses.  That's because the APIs used on Windows
to listen to subprocesses are limited to 64 handles, and we use 2
handles per pipe (3 more handles are taken by the standard I/O
handles).  So we cannot start 50 subprocesses unless the first few
exit by the time we get to the 32nd process.  Emacs checks for exited
subprocesses when it is idle, but the above loop never gives it a
chance to do that.  Adding a call to sleep-for does, and so the
problem disappears.

I can achieve similar results with a patch I show below, which causes
sys_pipe to retry the failed _pipe call after doing the equivalent of
`(sleep-for 0.1)'.

However, I'm not sure this actually solves your original problem, for
two reasons:

  . you said that your problem starts happening only after some time
    that Emacs is up and running, whereas this recipe works right away
    after starting "emacs -Q"

  . I really doubt that you use some code that launches many
    subprocesses one after the other without any idleness in between

So I think there's a different bug somewhere.  Or maybe I'm missing
something.  Can you tell more about the context of your original
problem, which produced the following backtrace:

  Debugger entered--Lisp error: (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
    call-process("ls")
    eval((call-process "ls") nil)
    eval-last-sexp-1(nil)
    ad-Orig-eval-last-sexp(nil)
    eval-last-sexp(nil)
    call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)

Was "ls" the only subprocess active at that time, or were you
launching many more at the same time?

If none of the above gives a clue, could you please add printf's to
the following functions:

 . create_child and register_child, where they assign cp->fd = fd

 . delete_child

In all of these places, please print cp->fd.  When the problem starts
to happen, it would be interesting to see which file descriptors
somehow were not released.

Here's the patch that allows your test case to run without failing:

=== modified file 'src/w32.c'
--- src/w32.c	2011-09-09 01:06:52 +0000
+++ src/w32.c	2011-09-29 15:37:54 +0000
@@ -5212,11 +5212,13 @@ sys_pipe (int * phandles)
 {
   int rc;
   unsigned flags;
+  int retried = 0;
 
   /* make pipe handles non-inheritable; when we spawn a child, we
      replace the relevant handle with an inheritable one.  Also put
      pipes into binary mode; we will do text mode translation ourselves
      if required.  */
+ retry:
   rc = _pipe (phandles, 0, _O_NOINHERIT | _O_BINARY);
 
   if (rc == 0)
@@ -5227,7 +5229,14 @@ sys_pipe (int * phandles)
 	{
 	  _close (phandles[0]);
 	  _close (phandles[1]);
+	  if (!retried)
+	    {
+	      wait_reading_process_output (0, 100000, 0, 0, Qnil, NULL, 0);
+	      retried = 1;
+	      goto retry;
+	    }
 	  rc = -1;
+	  errno = EAGAIN;
 	}
       else
 	{

Message #35 received at 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:45:40 +0800

Hi,

I believe the following commit has also fixed my problem.  i have not
reproduced it in days.

Author: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Date:   Sat May 5 11:40:31 2012 +0300

    Fix failures in starting subprocesses on Windows 7.

     src/w32proc.c (new_child): Force Windows to reserve only 64KB of
     stack for each reader_thread, instead of defaulting to 8MB
     determined by the linker.  This avoids failures in creating
     subprocesses on Windows 7, see the discussion in this thread:
     http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-03/msg00119.html


-William

Message #40 received at 9264-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 9264-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#9264: 24.0.50; (file-error "Creating process pipe" "no error")
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:47:54 +0300

> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:45:40 +0800
> From: William Xu <william.xwl <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 9264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> I believe the following commit has also fixed my problem.  i have not
> reproduced it in days.
> 
> Author: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Date:   Sat May 5 11:40:31 2012 +0300
> 
>     Fix failures in starting subprocesses on Windows 7.
> 
>      src/w32proc.c (new_child): Force Windows to reserve only 64KB of
>      stack for each reader_thread, instead of defaulting to 8MB
>      determined by the linker.  This avoids failures in creating
>      subprocesses on Windows 7, see the discussion in this thread:
>      http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-03/msg00119.html

Thanks.  I'm therefore closing this bug; feel free to reopen with new
data if the bug recurs.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.