On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:32:59AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > From 0dff46755af6063ed4b0339020ae5bb686692de1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> > > > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:13:28 -0500 > > > Subject: [PATCH 02/15] Server: Enable Watchdog in all daemons > > > > > > This allows the services to self monitor. > > > > > > Related: > > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2921 > > > > Is it intentional that we also enable the watchdog in monitor? I haven't > > seen the sssd process being stuck and if it does, we probably have > > bigger issues, so it's probably fine, I just need to remember to not > > SIGSTOP sssd when testing anymore :) > > > > Otherwise ack. > > Actually, more questions... > > Can you help me test this patch? I tried to inject sleep() into sssd_be > code and the sleep was just interrupted by the SIGRT delivery. With SSSD, > most of the time the process was stuck was because it was writing a lot of > data with fsync()/fdatasync(). I can't find any information in the Linux > fsync manpage on how fsync behaves wrt signals. openpub manpages indicate > that fsync would return EINTR, which worries me a bit..
Hmm, sorry, I was not being careful enough. man 7 signal also says: """ The sleep(3) function is also never restarted if interrupted by a handler, but gives a success return: the number of seconds remaining to sleep. """ so the sleep testcase was wrong even though CatchSignal uses SA_RESTART. But do you know how would write() or fsync() behave here? The signal manpage is a bit unclar to me as it talks about "slow" devices.. Or can you think of some easy way to test this? _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
