> On July 2, 2012, 5:18 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > src/linux/cgroups.cpp, line 615 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/5402/diff/5/?file=115747#file115747line615> > > > > Rather than keep this state, this is a great opportunity to fire off > > the 'killTasks' requests in parallel, then do a 'collect' on the futures!
Good idea! I will do it in the destroyer patch (the current patch only contains atomic kill stuff). - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/5402/#review8781 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 5, 2012, 10:07 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/5402/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 5, 2012, 10:07 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Vinod Kone. > > > Description > ------- > > This patch leverages the freezer subsystem in cgroups to kill all the > processes in a cgroup atomically. > > The main idea is to freeze all the processes in a cgroup first, then send > kill signal to all the proceses. This avoids the need of walking the proc > process tree to kill all processes associated with an executor. In fact, the > original killtree solution assumes that the user processes haven't blocked > the SIGSTOP signal, which may not be true in some cases. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/linux/cgroups.hpp PRE-CREATION > src/linux/cgroups.cpp PRE-CREATION > src/tests/cgroups_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/5402/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > On Linux machine, make check. > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
