On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:33:49AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 08/11/13 17:38, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > The user can launch the guest in this sequence: > > > > xl create -p /vm.cfg [launch, but pause it] > > xl shutdown latest [sets control/shutdown=poweroff] > > xl unpause latest > > xl console latest [and see that the guest has completely > > ignored the shutdown request] > > > > In reality the guest hasn't ignored it. It registers a watch > > and gets a notification that there is value. It then calls > > the shutdown_handler which ends up calling orderly_shutdown. > > Is this really a bug?.
Yes. We did get the action, we just did not properly act on it. > > >From the xl(1) man page. > > shutdown [OPTIONS] -a|domain-id > Gracefully shuts down a domain. This coordinates with the > domain OS to perform graceful shutdown, so there is no guarantee > that it will succeed, and may take a variable length of time > depending on what services must be shutdown in the domain. > > Seems like ignoring a shutdown request when the guest cannot yet > shutdown gracefully is the expected behaviour. > > This also doesn't seem sufficient. SYSTEM_RUNNING is set prior to > starting init in an initramfs and orderly_power_off(false) will still > likely fail at this point. Ugh, will have to figure out how else to realize when it the user-space is ready to launch programs. > > David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
