C语言中面向回调的库的建议

Question

I'm making small library for controlling various embedded devices using C language. I'm using UDP sockets to communicate with each of the devices. Devices send me various interesting data, alarms and notifications and at the same time they send some data that is used internally by the library but may not be interesting to users. So, I've implemented a callback approach, where user could register a callback function with some interesting events on each of the devices. Right now, overall design of this library is something like this:-

• I've two threads running.
• In one of the thread, there is a infinite while event-loop that uses select and non-blocking sockets to maintain the communication with each of the devices.
• Basically, every time I receive a packet from any of devices, I strip off the header which is 20 bytes of some useless information and add my own header containing DEVICE_ID , REQUES_TIME (time request was sent to retrieve that packet and RETRIEVAL_TIME (time now when packet actually arrived) and REQUEST_ID and REQUEST_TYPE (alarm, data, notification etc..).
• Now, this thread (one with infinite loop) put packet with new header into ring buffer and then notifies other thread (thread #2) to parse this information.
• In thread #2, when notification is received, it locks the buffer and read pop the packet and start parsing it.
• Every message contains some information that user may not be interested, so I'm providing user call back approach to act upon data which is useful to user.

Basically, I'm doing something like this in thread 2:-

THREAD #2

wait(data_put_in_buffer_cond)

lock(buffer_mutex)

packet_t* packet = pop_packet_from_buffer(buf);

unlock(buffer_mutex)

/* parsing the package... */
parsed_packet_t* parsed_packet = parse_and_change_endianess(packet->data);
/* header for put by thread #1 with host byte order only not parsing necessary */
header_t* header = get_header(packet);

/* thread 1 sets free callback for kind of packet it puts in buffer 
 * This not a critical section section of buffer, so fine without locks
 */
buffer.free_callback(packet);

foreach attribute in parsed_packet->attribute_list {
   register_info_t* rinfo = USER_REGISTRED_EVENT_TABLE[header->device_id][attribute.attr_id];

   /*user is register with this attribute ID on this device ID */
   if(rinfo != NULL) {
      rinof->callback(packet);
   }

   // Do some other stuff with this attribute..
}
free(parsed_packet);

Now, my concerned is that what will happen if callback function that user implements takes some time to complete and meanwhile I may drop some packet because ring buffer is in overwriting mode? I've tested my API for 3 to 4 devices, I don't see much drop event if callback function wait decent amount of time..I'm speculating that this approach may not be best.

Would it be a better design, if I use some sort of thread-pool to run user callback functions? In that case I would need to make explicit copy of packet before I send it to user callback? Each packet is about 500 to 700 bytes, I get around 2 packets per second from each device. Any suggestions or comments on improving the current design or solving this issues would be appreciated.

Answer 1

Getting 500-700 bytes per device is not a problem at all, especially if you only have 3-4 devices. Even if you had, let's say, 100 devices, it should not be a problem. The copy overhead would be most probably negligible. So, my suggest would be: do not try to optimize beforehand until you are certain that buffer copying is your bottleneck.

About losing packets, as you say in your question, you are already using a buffer ring (I assume that is something like a circular queue, right?). If the queue becomes full, then you just need to make thread #1 to wait until there is some available space in the queue. Clearly, more events from different devices may arrive, but that should not be a problem. Once, you have space again, select will let you know that you have available data from different devices, so you will just need to process all that data. Of course, in order to have a balanced system, you can set the size of the queue to a value that reduces as much as possible the number of times that the queue is full, and thus, thread #1 needs to wait.