starred/terminal
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/terminal.git synced 2026-02-04 05:35:20 +00:00
Code Issues 19.0k Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

[PR #4698] [MERGED] Fix RenderThread's notify mechanism #25896

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-01-31 09:12:29 +00:00 by claunia · 0 comments
claunia commented 2026-01-31 09:12:29 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/4698
Author: @beviu
Created: 2/22/2020
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 2/27/2020
Merged by: @undefined

Base: master ← Head: fix-render-notify

📝 Commits (3)

  • 8f92730 Fix RenderThread's notify mechanism
  • 1abecc0 Fix english mistake
  • 1664025 Fix NotifyPaint called before _fWaiting.store(false)

📊 Changes

2 files changed (+45 additions, -23 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/renderer/base/thread.cpp (+43 -21)
📝 src/renderer/base/thread.hpp (+2 -2)

📄 Description

Summary of the Pull Request

Fix a bug where the Renderer::PaintFrame method:

  1. is not called until the next RenderThread::NotifyThread call but needs to be called because there the terminal was updated (theoretical bug)
  2. is called twice but needs to be called only once (verified bug)

References

The bug was introduced by #3511.

PR Checklist

  • CLA signed. If not, go over here and sign the CLA

Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments

Before

First bug

In the original code, _fNextFrameRequested is set to true in render thread because std::atomic_flag::test_and_set is called.

This is wrong because it means that the render thread will render the terminal again even if there is no change after the last render.

I think the the goal was to load the boolean value for _fNextFrameRequested to check whether the thread should sleep or not.

The problem is that there is no method on std::atomic_flag to load its boolean value. I guess what happened was that the "solution" that was found was to use std::atomic_flag::test_and_set, followed by std::atomic_flag::clear if the value was false originally (if std::atomic_flag::test_and_set returned false) to restore the original value. I guess that this was believed to be equivalent to just a simple load, without doing any change to the value because it restores it at the end.

But it's not: this is dangerous because if the value is changed to true between the call to std::atomic_flag::test_and_set and the call to std::atomic_flag::clear, then the value ends up being false at the end which is wrong because we don't want to change it! And if that value ends up being false, it means that we miss a render because we will wait on _hEvent during the next iteration on the render thread.

Well actually, here, this not even a problem because when that code is ran, _fPainting is false which means that the other thread that modifies the _fNextFrameRequested value through RenderThread::NotifyPaint will not actually modify _fNextFrameRequested but rather call SetEvent (see the method's body).

But wait! There is a problem there too! std::atomic_flag::test_and_set is called for _fPainting which sets its value to true. It was probably unintended. So actually, the next call to RenderThread::NotifyPaint will end up modifying _fNextFrameRequested which means that the data race I was talking about might happen!

Second bug

Let's go back a little bit in my explanation. I was talking about the fact that:

I guess what happened was that the "solution" that was found was to use std::atomic_flag::test_and_set, followed by std::atomic_flag::clear if the value was false originally (if std::atomic_flag::test_and_set returned false) to restore the original value.

The problem is that the reverse was done in the implementation: std::atomic_flag::clear is called if the value was true originally!

So at this point, if the value of _fNextFrameRequested was false, then std::atomic_flag::test_and_set sets its is set to true and returns false. So for the next iteration, _fNextFrameRequested is true and the render thread will re-render but that was not needed.

After

I used std::atomic<bool> instead of std::atomic_flag for _fNextFrameRequested and the other atomic field because it has a load and a store method so we can actually load the value without changing it.

I also replaced _fPainting by _fWaiting, which is basically the opposite of _fPainting but stays true for a little shorter than _fPainting would stay false. Indeed, I think that it makes more sense to directly wrap/scope just the call to WaitForSingleObject by setting my atomic variable to true just before and to false just after because:

  • It makes more sense while you're reading the code: it's easier IMO to understand what the purpose of _fWaiting is (that is, to call SetEvent from RenderThread::NotifyPaint if it's true).
  • It's probably a tiny bit better for performance because it will become true for a little shorter which means less calls to SetEvent.

Warning

I don't really understand std::memory_orders.

So I used the default one (std::memory_order_seq_cst) which is the safest.

I believe that if no read or write are reordered in the two threads (RenderThread::NotifyPaint and RenderThread::_ThreadProc), then the code I wrote will behave correctly.

I think that std::memory_order_seq_cst enforces that so it should be fine, but I'm not sure.

Validation Steps Performed

I tried to reproduce the second bug that I described in the first section of this PR.

I put a breakpoint on RenderThread::NotifyPaint and on Renderer::PaintFrame. Initially they are disabled. Then I ran the terminal in Release mode, waited a bit for the prompt to display and the cursor to start blinking. Then I enabled the breakpoints.

Before

Each RenderThread::NotifyPaint is followed by 2 Renderer::PaintFrame calls. ❌

After

Each RenderThread::NotifyPaint is followed by 1 Renderer::PaintFrame call. ✔️

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/4698 **Author:** [@beviu](https://github.com/beviu) **Created:** 2/22/2020 **Status:** ✅ Merged **Merged:** 2/27/2020 **Merged by:** [@undefined](undefined) **Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `fix-render-notify` --- ### 📝 Commits (3) - [`8f92730`](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/commit/8f92730651da1855c67a09e5731e2d46160d04ab) Fix RenderThread's notify mechanism - [`1abecc0`](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/commit/1abecc0f04c1f2781081ad40c0dec85521a1eb20) Fix english mistake - [`1664025`](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/commit/1664025c44846d9e83fe1fcfe4c5c9b2d6607400) Fix `NotifyPaint` called before `_fWaiting.store(false)` ### 📊 Changes **2 files changed** (+45 additions, -23 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/renderer/base/thread.cpp` (+43 -21) 📝 `src/renderer/base/thread.hpp` (+2 -2) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary of the Pull Request Fix a bug where the `Renderer::PaintFrame` method: 1. is not called until the next `RenderThread::NotifyThread` call but needs to be called because there the terminal was updated (theoretical bug) 2. is called twice but needs to be called only once (verified bug) ## References The bug was introduced by #3511. ## PR Checklist * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments ### Before #### First bug In the original code, `_fNextFrameRequested` is set to `true` in render thread because `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` is called. This is wrong because it means that the render thread will render the terminal again even if there is no change after the last render. I think the the goal was to load the boolean value for `_fNextFrameRequested` to check whether the thread should sleep or not. The problem is that there is no method on `std::atomic_flag` to load its boolean value. I guess what happened was that the "solution" that was found was to use `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set`, followed by `std::atomic_flag::clear` if the value was `false` originally (if `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` returned `false`) to restore the original value. I guess that this was believed to be equivalent to just a simple load, without doing any change to the value because it restores it at the end. But it's not: this is dangerous because if the value is changed to `true` between the call to `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` and the call to `std::atomic_flag::clear`, then the value ends up being `false` at the end which is wrong because we don't want to change it! And if that value ends up being `false`, it means that we miss a render because we will wait on `_hEvent` during the next iteration on the render thread. Well actually, here, this not even a problem because when that code is ran, `_fPainting` is `false` which means that the other thread that modifies the `_fNextFrameRequested` value through `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` will not actually modify `_fNextFrameRequested` but rather call `SetEvent` (see the method's body). But wait! There is a problem there too! `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` is called for `_fPainting` which sets its value to `true`. It was probably unintended. So actually, the next call to `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` _will_ end up modifying `_fNextFrameRequested` which means that the data race I was talking about _might_ happen! #### Second bug Let's go back a little bit in my explanation. I was talking about the fact that: > I guess what happened was that the "solution" that was found was to use `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set`, followed by `std::atomic_flag::clear` if the value was `false` originally (if `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` returned `false`) to restore the original value. The problem is that the reverse was done in the implementation: `std::atomic_flag::clear` is called if the value was _`true`_ originally! So at this point, if the value of `_fNextFrameRequested` was `false`, then `std::atomic_flag::test_and_set` sets its is set to `true` and returns `false`. So for the next iteration, `_fNextFrameRequested` is `true` and the render thread will re-render but that was not needed. ### After I used `std::atomic<bool>` instead of `std::atomic_flag` for `_fNextFrameRequested` and the other atomic field because it has a `load` and a `store` method so we can actually load the value without changing it. I also replaced `_fPainting` by `_fWaiting`, which is basically the opposite of `_fPainting` but stays `true` for a little shorter than `_fPainting` would stay `false`. Indeed, I think that it makes more sense to directly wrap/scope _just_ the call to `WaitForSingleObject` by setting my atomic variable to `true` _just_ before and to `false` _just_ after because: * It makes more sense while you're reading the code: it's easier IMO to understand what the purpose of `_fWaiting` is (that is, to call `SetEvent` from `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` if it's `true`). * It's probably a tiny bit better for performance because it will become `true` for a little shorter which means less calls to `SetEvent`. #### Warning I don't really understand [std::memory_order](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order)s. So I used the default one (`std::memory_order_seq_cst`) which is the safest. I believe that if no read or write are reordered in the two threads (`RenderThread::NotifyPaint` and `RenderThread::_ThreadProc`), then the code I wrote will behave correctly. I think that `std::memory_order_seq_cst` enforces that so it should be fine, but I'm not sure. ## Validation Steps Performed **I tried to reproduce the second bug that I described in the first section of this PR.** I put a breakpoint on `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` and on `Renderer::PaintFrame`. Initially they are disabled. Then I ran the terminal in Release mode, waited a bit for the prompt to display and the cursor to start blinking. Then I enabled the breakpoints. ### Before Each `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` is followed by 2 `Renderer::PaintFrame` calls. ❌ ### After Each `RenderThread::NotifyPaint` is followed by 1 `Renderer::PaintFrame` call. ✔️ --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
claunia added the pull-request label 2026-01-31 09:12:29 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
⛺ Reserved
A11yCO
A11yMAS
A11ySev1
A11ySev2
A11ySev3
A11yTTValidated
A11yUsable
A11yVoiceAccess
A11yWCAG
Area-Accessibility
Area-AtlasEngine
Area-AzureShell
Area-Build
Area-Build
Area-Chat
Area-CmdPal
Area-CodeHealth
Area-Commandline
Area-CookedRead
Area-DefApp
Area-Extensibility
Area-Fonts
Area-GroupPolicy
Area-i18n
Area-Input
Area-Interaction
Area-Interop
Area-Localization
Area-Output
Area-Performance
Area-Portable
Area-Quality
Area-Remoting
Area-Rendering
Area-Schema
Area-Server
Area-Settings
Area-SettingsUI
Area-ShellExtension
Area-ShellExtension
Area-ShellExtension
Area-Suggestions
Area-Suggestions
Area-TerminalConnection
Area-TerminalControl
Area-Theming
Area-UserInterface
Area-VT
Area-Windowing
Area-WPFControl
AutoMerge
Blocking-Ingestion
Culprit-Centennial
Culprit-WinUI
Disability-All
Disability-Blind
Disability-LowVision
Disability-Mobility
External-Blocked-WinUI3
Fixed
Gathering-Data
good first issue
HCL-E+D
HCL-WindowsTerminal
Help Wanted
Impact-Compatibility
Impact-Compliance
Impact-Correctness
Impact-Visual
In-PR
InclusionBacklog
InclusionBacklog-Windows TerminalWin32
InclusionCommitted-202206
Issue-Bug
Issue-Docs
Issue-Feature
Issue-Feature
Issue-Question
Issue-Samples
Issue-Scenario
Issue-Task
Needs-Attention
Needs-Author-Feedback
Needs-Bisect
Needs-Discussion
Needs-Repro
Needs-Tag-Fix
Needs-Tag-Fix
Needs-Triage
No-Recent-Activity
Priority-0
Priority-1
Priority-2
Priority-3
Product-Cmd.exe
Product-Colortool
Product-Colortool
Product-Colortool
Product-Conhost
Product-Conpty
Product-Meta
Product-Powershell
Product-Terminal
Product-WSL
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 Resolution-Answered
Resolution-By-Design
Resolution-Duplicate
Resolution-External
Resolution-Fix-Available
Resolution-Fix-Committed
Resolution-No-Repro
Resolution-Won't-Fix
Severity-Blocking
Severity-Crash
Severity-DataLoss
spam
this-will-be-a-breaking-change
Tracking-External
WindowsTerminal_Win32
Work-Item
zAskModeBug
zInbox-Bug
No Label pull-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
claunia
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/terminal#25896
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?