On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:13:48AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 21.05.13 15:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:10:55PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote: > > > Just calling service_enter_dead() does not kill any processes. > > > As a result, the old process may still be running when the new one is > > > started. > > > After a watchdog failure the service is in an undefined state. > > > Using the normal shutdown mechanism makes no sense. Instead all processes > > > are just killed and the service can try to restart. > > Applied. > > > > (I thought for a while whether we should allow normal shutdown for > > watchdog-failed services. Sometimes that could be useful, but for > > the majority of cases just killing the process is probably the right > > option.) > > Hmm, I am pretty sure we should still execute the ExecStopPost= > commands, since their purpose might be to clean up things. If the > watchdog timeout is hit we can assume that a clean shutdown won't work, > so we shouldn't try to execute ExecStop= or try SIGTERM and go directly > to SIGKILL, but ExecStopPre= afterwards we should execute, I am pretty > sure. > > I have changed git now to enter STOP_SIGKILL rather than FINAL_SIGKILL > hence. > > I hope this makes sense? Yeah, that seems like a better choice. We should make sure to document this in the man pages at some point.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
