On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:10 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > > On 2014-11-24 12:04, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 11:12 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > >> > >> On 2014-11-20 04:44, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> When investigating the issue we had on Ubuntu Touch, described by bug > >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-rtm/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/1391230, > >>> I noticed that PulseAudio never releases the resources used by an > >>> active stream if the app gets a SIGSTOP, keeping pulse busy and > >>> consuming cpu until the app resumes or is closed by the user. > >>> > >>> On Ubuntu Touch that happens when the application is active playing > >>> audio/video, and the user moves back to the home scopes (Ubuntu Touch > >>> lifecycle will automatically send a SIGSTOP after 5 seconds). When > >>> checking that on my desktop, I also noticed that the same happens (by > >>> forcing a SIGSTOP against mplayer, for example). Pulse only releases > >>> the stream when the app pauses the stream, not necessarily when the > >>> app stops after receiving the signal. > >>> > >>> I raised this first with David to understand if it was indeed a valid > >>> use case, and he said that it was indeed something that it was > >>> probably never really considered > >>> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-rtm/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/1391230/comments/8). > >>> > >>> So before going and trying to deep dive and find a fix for the issue, > >>> I first wanted to understand from you guys if this is indeed a valid > >>> issue and what would be the best way to get this fixed. I know we're > >>> still using Pulse 4.0 on Ubuntu, but wanted to make sure to get > >>> something that would also be compatible with upstream. > >> > >> So when I discussed this with Ricardo, my suggestion was that we either > >> > >> 1) (ab)use the cork mechanism to stop/resume the client when we > >> discover that the client is SIGSTOPped, or > > > > This implies that we implement server-side corking, because currently > > the cork status is controlled by the client, and this "stalled" corking > > would be controlled by the server. > > > > Even though I have mentioned the "server-side corking" feature before > > (as something that we need and use in Tizen), I might not have explained > > how I think it should be implemented (Tizen's current implementation is > > less flexible than what I'd like). We should have a hashmap of "cork > > requests" in sink inputs and source outputs. The stream would be corked > > as long as the hashmap isn't empty, i.e. as long as someone thinks that > > the stream should be corked. The hashmap keys would be strings > > identifying the "corking reasons", so policy modules could easily add > > new reasons. The normal client-initiated corking would be one corking > > reason, and this stall detection would be another reason. Tizen's policy > > module would implement a third reason. > > +1 in general for this idea, to consolidate the "stall" concept with the > "server side cork" concept; the fewer concepts on the more use cases, > the better :-) > > I wonder what we should do with the "cork requests" though. I feel under > this scheme, we should deprecate them and replace them with a "you have > been (un)corked" message, possibly including the different reasons as > strings, so the client can determine whether the cork happened because > the client requested so, or if it was for some other reason. I'd vote for not removing the old cork request feature, because there are applications relying it. If the feature is seen as unnecessary for new/updated applications, I'm ok with marking it as deprecated in the documentation. As for sending some new kind of message like "you've been corked", I don't think that's necessary. If the introspection API allows pactl to show the cork status, including corking done by the server (possibly also including the reason string(s)), then the introspection API should be sufficient also for applications that need to get notified when their own stream gets corked by the server. Talking about the client API, there's the question that how should pa_sink_input_info.corked and pa_stream_is_corked(). For backwards compatibility reasons, I think at least pa_stream_is_corked() should return 1 only if the stream is corked by the application, and possibly it would be good to apply the same policy for pa_sink_input_info.corked too (but I think changing the pa_sink_input_info.corked semantics is less likely to cause breakage). Hmm... I realized there's another problem with stopped clients: not only do their streaming get stalled, but they also stop reading events that they may be subscribed to. The code looks like the daemon will buffer data until it runs out of memory, which seems like a bad idea... Let's assume that there's a simple application that just subscribes to events and does nothing else ("pactl subscribe" would fit the description). What to do when such application gets stopped? How do we notice that it's stopped, if it's not streaming? Should we send a ping message periodically? Or should we keep track of the amount of queued data, and if that reaches some threshold, then we consider that client stopped? Once we have declared the client unresponsive, should we disconnect it, or just drop subscription events until it becomes responsive again? In the latter case I think we should notify the application that events have been dropped. -- Tanu
