Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> Victor Sudakov wrote on 2019-04-22 19:43:
> ...
> >> And the implementation is pretty brutal:
> >> # 'vm stopall'
> >> # stop all bhyve instances
> >> # note this will also stop instances not started by vm-bhyve
> >> #
> >> core::stopall(){
> >> local _pids=$(pgrep -f 'bhyve:')
> >>
> >> echo "Shutting down all bhyve virtual machines"
> >> killall bhyve
> >> sleep 1
> >> killall bhyve
> >> wait_for_pids ${_pids}
> >> }
>
> yow.To be sure, I was unable to find the above code (as is) in /usr/local/lib/vm-bhyve/vm-* (the vm-bhyve port 1.3.0). It may be that something more intelligent is happening in a more recent version, like a sequential shutdown. However, "kill $pid; sleep 1; kill $pid" seems to be still present. > > >> > >> I wonder what the effect of the second kill is, > >> that seems odd. > > > > Indeed. > > the first killall will cause each client OS to see a soft shutdown > signal. the sleep 1 gives them some time to flush their buffers. the > second killall says, time's up, just stop. > > i think this is worse than brutal, it's wrong. consider freebsd's own > work flow when trying to comply with the first soft shutdown it got: > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sbin/reboot/reboot.c#L220 > > this has bitten me more than once, because using "pageins" as a proxy > for "my server processes are busy trying to synchronize their user mode > state" is inaccurate. i think _any_ continuing I/O should be reason to > wait the full 60 seconds. Would it be beneficial to just hack /usr/local/lib/vm-bhyve/vm-* ? > > and so i think the "sleep 1" above should be a "sleep 65". > > > What is needed in vm-bhyve is the feature that if ACPI does not stop the > > guest for a predefined period of time, the guest is powered off. > > i agree with this. Will you please support the bug report: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237479 -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
