> On Jan. 24, 2014, 8:12 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp, lines 163-165 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/diff/1/?file=447773#file447773line163> > > > > Instead of killing the subprocess when 'status' is discarded, what > > about having an explicit kill(), because a user who doesn't care about exit > > status does not mean that he want the subprocess to be killed.
I've opted to remove the discard semantics, but I've also omitted a kill(), since the user has access to the pid and so it seems best for now to just let the caller determine how to kill (which signal, kill escalation SIGTERM -> SIGKILL, etc). > On Jan. 24, 2014, 8:12 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp, line 30 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/diff/1/?file=447773#file447773line30> > > > > What's the reason not having a copy constructor? Added one. > On Jan. 24, 2014, 8:12 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp, line 157 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/diff/1/?file=447773#file447773line157> > > > > Not sure if we need a reaper for each subprocess call? Can we create > > one reaper for all subprocess calls? > > > > I guess you don't want to create a reaper if no subprocess call is > > made, and you want to cleanup the reaper if all Subprocesses are terminated. > > > > But given that you need to handle reaper cleanup logic in any way > > (_cleanup), why not do it at global level (i.e., lazy initialization, > > reference counting). Ah perfect, I've already changed this to become process::reap in the previous review, which now uses a lazily initialized Reaper, please take a look! :) - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/#review32740 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 24, 2014, 7:06 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 24, 2014, 7:06 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ian Downes, and Jie Yu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-943 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-943 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > This adds an asynchronous mechanism for subprocess execution, per MESOS-943. > > What started simple was made a little more complex due to the following > issues: > > 1. Who is responsible for closing the input / output descriptors? > > Placing this burden onto the caller of subprocess() seems likely to yield > leaked open file descriptors. This introduced the notion of a shared_ptr / > destructor / copy constructor / assignment constructor to ensure that the > file descriptors are closed when the handle to the file descriptors are lost. > However, even with my implementation, one may copy these file descriptors, at > which point they may be deleted from underneath them. > > 2. What does discarding the status entail? Does it kill the process? > > The current implementation kills the process, which requires the use of an > explicit Promise to deal with the discard from the caller not affecting the > reaper's future. If discard() is a no-op, we must still use an explicit > Promise to preserve the notification from the Reaper (so that we can know > when to delete the Reaper). > > > That's about it, I've added tests that demonstrate the ability to communicate > with the subprocess through stdin / stout / stderr. > > Please let me know if you find any simplifications that can be made! (Other > than C++11 lambdas, of course :)) > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 40f01a7b3803696ccca440c8326e1d6d7c377459 > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17306/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Tests were added and ran in repetition. > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
