On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Mon, 07.11.11 11:09, Williams, Dan J (dan.j.willi...@intel.com) wrote: >> So I think mdmon should always try to escape itself from cgroup based >> killing. It follows the lifespan of the array, and if the array is >> not stopped by the cgroup exit (or the array lifespan is not >> controlled in a service file), then mdmon must keep running. > > Well, I think when it gets killed by the cgroup-based killer then it > should try to tear down its MD device.
We can easily fall off the complexity cliff trying to tear down the MD device because it can be pinned by a mounted filesystem or being claimed anywhere in an arbitrary stack of DM or MD devices. I did not think cgroup exit would umount() filesystems? [..] >> I notice that if the rootfs is on a dm or md device systemd/shutdown >> will always fall through to ultimate_send_signal() which will not >> discriminate against processes flagged with '@'. Since we aren't >> stopping the root md device I wonder if ultimate_send_signal() should >> also ignore flagged processes, or whether the failure to stop the root >> device is to be expected and let shutdown skip ultimate_send_signal() >> if the only remaining work is shutting down the rootfs-blockdev. I'm >> leaning towards the latter. > > The idea was to skip processes flgged with '@' in both the > ultimate_send_signal() and send_signal() calls. Ok, that makes it easier. -- Dan _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
