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 594767484D for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:23:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4E64B2316A for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:23:30 +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 C3C382315C for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:23:29 +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 973D742EC2 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:23:29 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210621163542.1752647-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20210621163542.1752647-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <5ea58873-63b0-d14f-0649-574547b57070@proxmox.com> From: Stefan Reiter Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:23:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ea58873-63b0-d14f-0649-574547b57070@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.716 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 07:23:30 -0000 On 22/06/2021 08:02, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > 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. > yeah sorry, should have made the comment more obvious - that's where I got the value from too