It is only calling fini() apart from that not much. On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So > xavi and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending > GF_PARENT_DOWN event. > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Darcy <jda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > Does anyone know why GF_PARENT_DOWN is not triggered on SIGKILL? It >> will give >> > a chance for xlators to do any cleanup they need to do. For example ec >> can >> > complete the delayed xattrops. >> >> Nothing is triggered on SIGKILL. SIGKILL is explicitly defined to >> terminate a >> process *immediately*. Among other things, this means it can not be >> ignored or >> caught, to preclude handlers doing something that might delay termination. >> >> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_04 >> >> Since at least 4.2BSD and SVr2 (the first version of UNIX that I worked >> on) >> there have even been distinct kernel code paths to ensure special >> handling of >> SIGKILL. There's nothing we can do about SIGKILL except be prepared to >> deal >> with it the same way we'd deal with the entire machine crashing. >> >> If you mean why is there nothing we can do on a *server* in response to >> SIGKILL on a *client*, that's a slightly more interesting question. It's >> possible that the unique nature of SIGKILL puts connections into a >> different state than either system failure (on the more abrupt side) or >> clean shutdown (less abrupt). If so, we probably need to take a look at >> the socket/RPC code or perhaps even protocol/server to see why these >> connections are not being cleaned up and shut down in a timely fashion. >> > > > > -- > Pranith > -- Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel