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?) 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... Either people let us shutdown a service, or they do it themselves, but allowing a crappy (asynchronous) shutdown routine sounds wrong to me... At the hackfest in BRU I have now implemented KillMode=mixed, which should fixed the issue mostly... Could you test, please? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel