From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02BC27481B for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:03:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E49C922856 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:03:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id BB94322845 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:03:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 803FD42338 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:03:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5ea58873-63b0-d14f-0649-574547b57070@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:02:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Reiter References: <20210621163542.1752647-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20210621163542.1752647-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210621163542.1752647-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.704 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/2] use KillMode 'process' for systemd scope X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:03:36 -0000 On 21.06.21 18:35, Stefan Reiter wrote: > KillMode 'none' is deprecated, and systemd loudly complains about that > in the journal. To avoid the warning, but keep the behaviour the same, > use KillMode 'process'. > > This mode does two things differently, which we have to stop it from > doing: > * it sends SIGTERM right when the scope is cancelled (e.g. on shutdown) > -> but only to the "root" process, which in our case is the worker > instance forking QEMU, so it is already dead by the time this happens > * it sends SIGKILL to *all* children after a timeout > -> can be avoided by setting either SendSIGKILL to false, or > TimeoutStopUSec to infinity - for safety, we do both > > In my testing, this replicated the previous behaviour exactly, but > without using the deprecated 'none' mode. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter > --- > > Depends on updated pve-common from patch 2. > > PVE/QemuServer.pm | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > index 07dd14a..d5b7ead 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > @@ -5286,7 +5286,9 @@ sub vm_start_nolock { > > my %properties = ( > Slice => 'qemu.slice', > - KillMode => 'none' > + KillMode => 'process', > + SendSIGKILL => 0, > + TimeoutStopUSec => ULONG_MAX, # infinity I wasn't sure if ULONG_MAX is used literally, making 71 minutes on 32 bit and ~584k years on 64bit, or if it is translated internally to 'infinity', I mean with us only supporting 64-bit a duration of 584k year, while not infinity, would be more than enough, but still, always good to check those things IMO: >From `src/basic/time-util.h` typedef uint64_t usec_t; ... #define USEC_INFINITY ((usec_t) -1) So, yes, literally means infinity.