[pjsip] pj_thread_sleep(0) problem in linux platform issue

Benny Prijono bennylp at pjsip.org
Thu May 22 05:50:01 EDT 2008


On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Simon Chen <simonmychen at seed.net.tw> wrote:
> Hi! Benny,
>
>    Sorry! I forgot describe my application firstly.
>    I use pjlib to implement a proprietary TCP serve-client application for
> cross-platform issue. I got a problem when I use mutex lock and unlock to
> protect the channel object. Two thread(A, B) will access the channel object
> at the same time. Before channel object is accessed, lock the mutex and
> unlock it after finished access. Thread A always loops to access the channel
> object. Thread B sometimes access the it. In windows platform, it can work
> perfectly. But in linux platform, Thread B can't access the channel object.
> I add the pj_thread_sleep(0) between mutex unlock and lock to force task
> switch. Then Thread B can sccess it. But this will cause the Thread A to
> sleep 10 ms every loop in linux platform (in windows, pj_thread_sleep(0)
> just forces task switch and don't sleep) This will cause my application
> performance bad.
>

I have a feeling that something is not right there (I mean, one thread
running on a busy loop doesn't sound like very efficient), but I don't
want to criticize that. I'm just glad to hear that the problem is not
in pjsip code. ;-)

>    I agree your statement "considering that application may create threads
> with different priorities and also the process itself may be set to
> particular scheduling policy, it may not achieve what we want", but I think
> pj_thread_sleep(0) should be just forced to task switch. If wanna avoid the
> different thread priorities or scheduling situation, using
> pj_thread_sleep(n) may be more suitable. So I advance my suggestion. Is it
> reasonable? Hope to hear your advice. Thanks!
>

Hmm.. actually from this: http://skyos.org/bugs/view.php?id=1972, it
looks like usleep(0) and nanosleep(0) behaves differently than
sleep(0), and it may be that sleep(0) will fit with what you want.

What if you replace sched_yield() to sleep(0) for pj_thread_sleep(0)
case in your patch? Does it work as expected?

If so, then your patch will be more acceptable and we can defer
sched_yield() discussion to another day. :)

Cheers
 Benny




More information about the pjsip mailing list