On 19/01/2021 16:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:34:00 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2021 15:24, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:46:18 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this clarifies in my mind why I wouldn't ever use this
>>>> technique to observe events in practice. It is too fragile.
>>>
>>> So raise a bug to get it fixed: this will help everybody and is, after
>>> all, why most Linux distros have decent bug reporting facilities. Plus
>>> its quite a good way of thanking the developers for their work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There is not a bug, just different implementations, different behaviour.
>> Different buffering, different arguments.
>
> Disagree: the delay you're seeing is definitely a bug, though possibly
> its a task scheduler issue. If you run less than a buffer-full of data
> through a pipe there should not be a noticeable delay under a UNIX/Linux
> OS because the buffer is in memory and the task scheduler is a
> multitasking scheduler and so can interleave both the writing and reading
> tasks without any delay except those caused by task switching and being
> preempted by higher priority tasks.
>
> You're reporting multi-second delays you can see which task(s) are
> involved: run the delayed pipe again, but this time with 'top' running in
> another console window to see what programs are active during the delay.
>

I think you are missing the point. If I pipe 4095 characters into mawk,
nothing happens, if a pipe an extra char to make 4096, it prints out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05