[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] chan_sip: more accurate retransmissions

[Russell Bryant]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/747/#review2284
-----------------------------------------------------------


I would rather see a slightly more invasive, but complete version of this change.

I recommend creating a wrapper around ast_sched_add() for use in chan_sip that will always poke the thread if the scheduled time is less than 1 second in the future.

- Russell


On 2010-06-25 12:19:38, David Vossel wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/747/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-06-25 12:19:38)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers and Russell Bryant.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Yes, there is some red in this diff, ignore it I'll fix it.
> 
> RFC3261 states that Timer A should start at 500ms (T1) by default.  In chan_sip this value initially started at 1000ms and I changed it to 500ms recently. After doing that I noticed in my packet captures that it still occasionally retransmitted starting at 1000ms instead of 500ms like I told it to.  This occurs because the scheduler runs in the do_monitor thread.  If a new retransmission is added while the do_monitor thread is sleeping then it may not detect that retransmission for nearly 1000ms.  To fix this I just poke the do_monitor thread to wake up when a new packet is sent reliably requiring retransmits.  The thread then detects the new scheduler entry and adjusts its sleep time to account for it.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/channels/chan_sip.c 272526 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/747/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> I tested it with sipp.  sipp sends and invite and nothing more.  I watch the 200oks get retransmitted and verify the retransmission times are correct.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
>