Re: [OSR-devel] /etc/xkillallprocs and /etc/xkillall_procs

[Marc G. <gr...@at...>]

On Wednesday 01 July 2009 13:47:28 Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:07:02 +0200, Marc Grimme <gr...@at...> wrote:
> > Hi Gordan,
> > sorry for taking that long.
>
> No problem. This particular thing is only an issue at shutdown and I don't
> down my servers very often. And even then it's not a problem with
> functioning fencing devices. ;)
But it should work though.
>
> >> What is the difference between these two files? I noticed that
> >> /etc/xkillallprocs got clobbered after a reboot, and the two lines I
> >> added
> >> to it (glusterfs and glusterfsd) got removed. On shutdown, with the file
> >
> > Yes they got removed. Basically they should be built automatically.
> > The procs are got from a function called {rootfs}_get_userspace_procs. In
> > your case it should be glusterfs_userspace_procs.
>
> Aha! That's what I'm missing! Thank you!
Let me know if it works.
>
> >> edited to add those two, shutdown with glusterfs still locks up
> >> immediately
> >> after "sending all processes the TERM signal". Any ideas on how to debug
> >> this further? My gut feeling is that glusterfs ends up getting killed
>
> and
>
> >> the machine locks up because the rootfs went away, but it's quite hard
> >> investigate a system in such a hung state.
> >
> > Yes. It is. I always add /bin/bash(s) at every step in the relevant
> > initscripts. But I would say if you get that xkillallprocs right it
>
> should
>
> > work.
>
> I was thinking about something similar, but with double-wrapping init so
> that there is an init for the base root that can run gettys, and have a
> base root shell available to investigate things when they get going. It was
> sufficiently complicated to implement to deter me, at least for now,
> though. The bash-at-every-line idea has more short-term merit. :)
Yes, I don't like it either.
>
> > You also need the /usr/comoonics/sbin/killall binary which does not kill
> > _ALL_
> > userproceses but can exclude the ones in i.e. /etc/xkillallprocs.
>
> Last I checked, that was in the halt patch that gets applied automatically.
> Has that changed recently?
No it still is in SysVinit-comoonics found in the comoonics-repo.
>
> > For a little backround see:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496843
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496854
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496857
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496861
>
> Indeed, I'm aware of the background. I was just failing to figure out where
> the exclusion list gets set. Having said that, if i manually modify the
> /etc/xkillallprocs, should that not be honoured at least in the next
> shutdown? I've found that the shutdown hangs even when I add glusterfs
> processes to it.
As I said you need /usr/comoonics/sbin/killall5 for it. This allows a 
killall5 -x <process> + init u. We are trying to get this upstream but until 
now only init u got accepted.

Marc.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gordan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- _______________________________________________
> Open-sharedroot-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-sharedroot-devel



-- 
Gruss / Regards,

Marc Grimme
http://www.atix.de/               http://www.open-sharedroot.org/