29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
3:51 p.m.
Hi Andrei,
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
it seems that it made it though here and even with improvements as
Ovidiu Sas imported in in Kamailio, so the functionality, although not
code-line identical should all be in modules_k/ratelimit
I see. OK, then I'll come back with the added flag ;-). Do you think
that it would be useful if we'd demand some unfix parameter functions
for the memory that the module fixes do? AFAICT, this is still one of
the main roadblocks (if not the only) in having an empty mem list on ser
nice exit...
well... I like to have all the advantages that a ser process has, like
being able to process SIP messages, without having a big interface back
to ser for pushing back events and actions.
Actually, now that I looked again, I see that I am only initializing
some variables from mod_init() and then forking from mod_child_init(),
but only from one from PROC_MAIN.
/**
* Child init function.
* - starts the DiameterPeer by forking the processes
* @param rank - id of the child
*/
static int cdp_child_init( int rank )
{
if (rank == PROC_MAIN) {
LOG(L_INFO,"INFO:"M_NAME":cdp_child_init(): CDiameterPeer starting
...\n");
diameter_peer_start(0);
LOG(L_INFO,"INFO:"M_NAME":cdp_child_init(): ... CDiameterPeer
started\n");
}
return 0;
}
Then one of the processes will later on get a fd on a newly opened
socket and then fork, which fd looks like already in pt[].unix_sock for
another process. So these are the sockets for communicating with the
"owner" of the SIP TCP sockets? So there are a lot of assumptions there
about what you do with the forked processes... more than I actually took
into consideration.
I'll try and debug this further too and come-up with a better
description of the issue. In case you'd like to try it for yourself, the
module cdp is here:
http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/openimscore/ser_ims/trunk/modules/cdp/
. It should be compilable under sr with the previous sip-router_pt.diff
which adds the drop_my_process() function.
* ratelimit
- a much extended ratelimit module, with multiple
queues, dynamic limiting capabilities based on internal/external
indicators, random retry-after capabilities, etc; which although
sent towards the SER trunk, never made it
IIRC initially the author thought it was not ready for ser. After that
it probably got lost in the noise (up until now I was sure it _was_ in
ser :-)).
* Core -
support for emergency URI, some mem logging improvements, etc.
I remember the mem logging stuff. IIRC an extra config option for
turning it on/off is all that's missing (there are people for which the
restart speed matters a lot and in some corner cases the mem logging
summary can eat some time).
I'm not sure about he emergency URI, but we could
add a compile def for
it (or even support it if it doesn't affect anything else).
I already posted the patch once, so here it is again. Not a big deal,
just some sensible support for parsing and then some more cases in some
switches before declaring it as invalid. I guess it won't hurt to have
it in even without flags.
As Jan said there are several options. From my point
of view the
separate branch doesn't make much sense, it's equivalent to a separate
git repo from the point of view of everyday work complexity, but a
separate repo would be more clean. So (again from my point of view),
it's either a separate git repo or a new modules_* directory.
I like the modules_osims directory idea, but if you choose to go this
path you should be aware that if you need to make changes to something
not in that directory and in particular core+tm there might be some
"conflicts". In particular you should take into account _slow_ response
times and/or integration for new features in core or tm.
I really hope that we won't make changes to core+tm... We did some for
the core as we needed this for the diameter integration and there are
some other stuff that we might be somehow in front, like the emergency
URN. But this are small occurrences for which, like you said, I would
not sacrifice the advantages of not being on a different branch of sr.
And after all... OSIMS is not much more than some other way of
configuring and running sr... really, IMS not reinvent the wheel or
anything :-p.
-
sip-router_modules_s_dialog.diff - just some typos in logging
- sip-router_pt.diff
- added a drop_my_process() function - in the cdp module (Diameter)
we do have dynamic processes, which fork and exit distinctly from the
ser ones, so we need this to clean-up. Without it, such usages would not
be possible as the process table would fill and then new forks would be
denied
I haven't looked at the patch yet, but why do you use ser fork_process()
for these dynamic processes and not normal fork()?
- I have
commented the pt.c
<mailbox:///root/private/_mail/Mail/common/Sent?number=587016624#pt.c>
line 210. I am not sure if this is a bug or I just used the fork_process
wrongly, but my process which was forked from a mod_init() not a
mod_child_init() opens some sockets, which are mistakenly closed on
fork_process() by the close_extra_socks(), which uses the pt[].unix_sock
values from other processes, which overlap. So please advise on what would
the best way be to still allow for the forked processes to open some
sockets without them being closed on fork.
I don't see how it could happen. All the new forked processes inherit
the unix socket used for communicating with tcp_main from all the
processes forked before. close_extra_socks() closes all this unneeded fd
in the new forked process.
If you use fork_process from mod_init, the most likely the process_count
is 0 at the time of forking => close_extra_socks() won't do anything.
Could you provide me with more info on how exactly you fork the
processes and what fds overlap?
I'm for the separate module directory, with a
suggestive name (like
modules_osims, modules_ims, osims a.s.o.), but if you need to make a lot
of experimental or bad-for-noims-use changes, the separate git repo it's
probably better.
I am leaning also towards the modules_osims. Then if you have an
experimental flag that you could put on the entire directory, it would
be great. For some parts, like the cdp, if the users like it we could
just as well get it stabilized and moved out. But some other parts would
probably be just too crazy to be used in a real exploitation environment
and I hope that this won't cause support confusions. Ultimately, we just
want that our users could pull the osims together with the latest sr and
have cross benefits.
Cheers,
-Dragos