[Xenomai] Cobalt __SIGPOOL_SIZE

Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka at siemens.com
Wed Jul 4 13:46:29 CEST 2018

On 2018-07-03 19:23, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 07/02/2018 03:18 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Philippe,
>> The comment for __SIGPOOL_SIZE in kernel/cobalt/posix/signal.c suggests
>> that there can't be many signals in pending state at the same time, but
>> I think it is wrong: Signal are collected per thread, and each of it can
>> pile up multiple of them. Even if we assume that typical threads will
>> not queue those for long and will not wait for many of them, the fact
>> that the system-wide(!) number of threads is a scaling factor and the
>> pool is system-wide as well makes me wonder if __SIGPOOL_SIZE shouldn't
>> become a tunable.
> Still pondering the idea here. A static tunable would be a way of
> postponing the issue until after the point it should not happen anymore,
> but picking a safe value would still be guess work.
> We could pre-allocate a pool from the core heap, then pull extra
> sigpending blocks from the same place upon starvation if need be. But
> then, we'd need a way to figure out when a sigpending struct comes from
> the pool, when it has been allocated elsewhere. I don't see any elegant
> way to do that at the moment (meaning: without stuffing that struct with
> some ugly boolean).

Signals are just a clumsy API (I'm telling this again and again, but not
many people are listining...).

Anyway, the good news is that, although we are using them here a lot,
the only complain about an empty pool so far came from that leak. So
maybe my question is rather theoretic, don't know.

What I would suggest, though, is to have per-process pools. That would
avoid that a stalled process with lots of signals pending could starve
another, well-behaving one. How to configure the size of that pools
would remain an open topic, true.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

More information about the Xenomai mailing list