В Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:15:54 +0000 Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie> пишет:
> [Mailing list CC'ed again] > > 'Twas brillig, and Andrey Borzenkov at 27/01/14 11:58 did gyre and gimble: > > В Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:27:31 +0000 > > Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie> пишет: > > > >> 'Twas brillig, and Andrey Borzenkov at 26/01/14 17:16 did gyre and gimble: > >>>>> I guess what we want is to first send SIGTERM only to the systemd > >>>>> --user process, and only after a timeout start sending SIGTERM to all > >>>>> the processes in the control group? I.e., wouldn't a ExecStop entry in > >>>>> user@.service give us the required timeout? > >>>>> > >>> Does not work. systemd sends SIGTERM as soon as ExecStop finished. > >> > >> Could you not use the same hack that apache httpd needs? > >> > >> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/httpd.git/tree/httpd.service#n28 > >> > > > > No. > > > > systemd user instance needs SIGTERM to start "shutdown" procedure. > > systemd system instance does not allow SIGTERM to be sent to the > > $MAINPID only. Sending SIGTERM to all processes at the very beginning > > is wrong. > > Hmm, I thought the bit I quoted which said: > > > ExecStop=/bin/kill -WINCH ${MAINPID} > > could be used to tell the user session to start it's shudown procedure, > but rather than -WINCH as in the httpd case, we'd just send SIGTERM here > instead. > Ah, well. So systemd will not allow to say KillMode=none but happily accepts dummy signal which does nothing. How consistent :) This could be considered as workaround for a released distro where user@.service does not do anything useful anyway. Right. Thank you for an idea! > But perhaps I'm still missing something and this won't work :( > No, I expect it to work. Just losing final "graceful stop" step, but this should have been handled by systemd user instance already in the first place. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
