[openstack-dev] [oslo][nova] oslo common.service vs. screen and devstack
sean at dague.net
Fri Dec 20 14:59:45 UTC 2013
On 12/20/2013 09:55 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com
> <mailto:clint at fewbar.com>> wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2013-12-19 16:33:12 -0800:
> > So a few people had been reporting recently that unstack no longer
> > nova processes, which I only got around to looking at today. It turns
> > out the new common.service stack from oslo takes SIGHUP and treats
> it as
> > a restart. Which isn't wrong, but is new, and is incompatible with
> > screen (the way we use it). Because we use -X stuff, the resulting -X
> > quit sends SIGHUP to the child processes.
> > So the question is, are we definitely in a state now where nova
> > can and do want to support SIGHUP as restart?
> > If so, is there interest in being able to disable that behavior at
> > time, so we can continue with a screen based approach as well?
> > If not, we'll need to figure out another way to approach the
> shutdown in
> > devstack. Which is fine, just work that wasn't expected.
> Perhaps if the process is running in the foreground, as it does in
> devstack, it should still terminate on SIGHUP rather than restart.
> It looks like the changes to ServiceLauncher.wait() that introduced this
> behavior are related to
> where we wanted a service to be able to re-read its configuration files
> on a signal. HUP seems appropriate for a production
> environment, but probably not for development.
> I opened https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo/+bug/1263122 to track the fix.
So as Clint said, SIGHUP is only appropriate to do that *if* the process
is daemonized. If it's in the foreground it's not.
So that logic needs to be better.
Samsung Research America
sean at dague.net / sean.dague at samsung.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the OpenStack-dev