On Fri, 24.10.14 16:04, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 22.10.14 18:35, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote: > > > >> > That's difficult to say just from these logs. Can you reliably > >> > reproduce this? If so, can you attach strace to journald before this > >> > happens and see what it is doing? > >> > >> I am wondering if we should send another signal that generates core > >> when the watchdog is not fed. It would be nice to get the coredump of > >> a frozen process. > > > > Oh indeed, we should probably send a SIGABRT in this case. Makes a ton > > of sense. Love it! > > > > Added to the TODO list. > > What makes sense here the most? Something like KillSignalWatchdog= or > just by default sending SIGABRT on services that timed out?
I'd probably hardcode SIGABRT as the signal to send on watchdog timeouts. Since the watchdog stuff is opt-in anyway and I don't see which other signal would make sense it sounds like an OK thing to do. I figure we should send SIGABRT on timeout and then follow the usual SIGTERM/SIGKILL route (i.e. not replace the signal, but just send one more signal in this case). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel