Why to use non-blocking waitpid instead of blocking wait?

Question

I am reading https://www.amazon.com/Unix-Network-Programming-Sockets-Networking/dp/0131411551, and there the author handle the sigchld in handler that calls waitpid rather then wait.

In Figure 5.7, we cannot call wait in a loop, because there is no way to prevent wait from blocking if there are running children that have not yet terminated.

The handler is as follows:

void sig_chld(int signo)
{
    pid_t pid;
    int stat;

    // while ((pid = wait(&stat)) > 0)
    while ((pid = waitpid(-1, &stat, WNOHANG)) > 0)
    {
        printf("child %d terminated\n", pid);
    }
}

The question is, even if I use the blocking version of wait (as is commented out), the child are terminated anyway (which is what I want in order to not have zombies), so why to even bother whether it is in blocking way or non-blocking?

I assume when it is non-blocking way (i.e. with waitpid), then I can call the handler multiple times? (when some childs are terminated, and other are still running). But still I can just block and wait in that handler for all child to terminate. So no difference between calling the handler multiple times or just once. Or is there any other reason for non-blocking and calling the handler multiple times?

Answer 1

The while loop condition will run one more time than there are zombie child processes that need to be waited for. So if you use wait() instead of waitpid() with the WNOHANG flag, it'll potentially block forever if you have another still running child - as wait() only returns early with an ECHLD error if there are no child processes at all. A robust generic handler will use waitpid() to avoid that.

Picture a case where the parent process starts multiple children to do various things, and periodically sends them instructions about what to do. When the first one exits, using wait() in a loop in the SIGCHLD handler will cause it to block forever while the other child processes are hanging around waiting for more instructions that they'll never receive.

Or, say, an inetd server that listens for network connections and forks off a new process to handle each one. Some services finish quickly, some can run for hours or days. If it uses a signal handler to catch exiting children, it won't be able to do anything else until the long-lived one exits if you use wait() in a loop once that handler is triggered by a short-lived service process exiting.