В Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:10:51 +0100 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> пишет:
> On Wed, 29.01.14 19:29, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > Thanks for tracking this done, this really sounds like you nailed the > > > problem. Now, how to fix it? > > > > > > Hmm, so, I would claim this is a shortcoming of > > > KillMode=control-group, which is the default for everything. There has > > > been an item on the TODO list to maybe introduce a KillMode=mixed > > > setting, which would send SIGTERM only to the main process, and the > > > SIGKILL later on to all processes. I am pretty sure that this would > > > solve the issue at hand quite nicely here, because the systemd user > > > instance would get a nice chance to clean up its own act, before the > > > systemd system instance would make tabula rasa... > > > > > > > I still favor alternative approach - let systemd wait for main PID > > to exit after ExecStop instead. This is functionally equivalent to the > > above with slight advantages > > I am really not convinced that ExecStop= should be allowed to be > asynchronous. (Which is what you suggest we do, right?) Yes. > In fact, it's > already problem enough that we pretend we allow ExecReload= to be > asynchronous like that... It's a question of allowing bad code > through... I do not suggest "send it a singnal and pray for it". You send a signal (or whatever) and wait for MAINPID to exit. MAINPID is *the* service for systemd. Service exists while it runs; service is stopped when it exits. I do not understand what is bad about it, sorry. > Either people let us shutdown a service, or they do it > themselves, but allowing a crappy (asynchronous) shutdown routine sounds > wrong to me... > It is synchronous for systemd - it waits until MAINPID exits. Not every service has natural synchronous stop implementation - actually, I suspect that most of them do not and simply use busy loop waiting for the same MAINPID. But we already have PID 1 whose job is to wait for other processes to exist and it does its job rather well. Why not rely on it? > At the hackfest in BRU I have now implemented KillMode=mixed, which > should fixed the issue mostly... Could you test, please? Sure it works, but it does exactly the same - it implements asynchronous service stop without having benefits of reaping leftover processes early. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
