----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7203/#review11794 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! lgtm. i've a feeling we need to also do a force kill. but we can do this after we see how brian's test pans out. - Vinod Kone On Sept. 21, 2012, 2:02 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7203/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 21, 2012, 2:02 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Vinod Kone, Brian Wickman, and Jie Yu. > > > Description > ------- > > See summary and > http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroups/freezer-subsystem.txt: > > It's important to note that freezing can be incomplete. In that case we return > EBUSY. This means that some tasks in the cgroup are busy doing something that > prevents us from completely freezing the cgroup at this time. After EBUSY, > the cgroup will remain partially frozen -- reflected by freezer.state > reporting > "FREEZING" when read. The state will remain "FREEZING" until one of these > things happens: > > 1) Userspace cancels the freezing operation by writing "THAWED" to > the freezer.state file > 2) Userspace retries the freezing operation by writing "FROZEN" to > the freezer.state file (writing "FREEZING" is not legal > and returns EINVAL) > 3) The tasks that blocked the cgroup from entering the "FROZEN" > state disappear from the cgroup's set of tasks. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/linux/cgroups.cpp 4efd06e > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7203/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
