Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New methods to access processes. #25

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

skasperski
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@jmachowinski
Copy link
Member

Fixed alive() method.
-> What was the problem / What is fixed by this commit ?

Copy link
Member

@maltewi maltewi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the effort overworking this part... it's appreciated. But there are a few things to clarify before merging

throw std::runtime_error(std::string("waitpid failed: ") + strerror(errno));
else
throw std::runtime_error("waitpid returned undocumented value");
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this function has a bug: the name of the function suggests that it's okay to call it on a non-running process with the expected return value false. This behavior was ensured with the previously present isRunning flag.

Whats the behavior now, if we call a process, kill it and then call alive after the collection of the termination signal again. I think the function would not show the expected behavior.

See also comment regarding killAll and handles.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be an issue. When the process just finished, waitpid will return the pid of the exited process, hence alive will just return false. When waitpid returns -1, it means that it could not check the status of the process.

src/Spawner.cpp Outdated
@@ -256,7 +233,41 @@ void Spawner::ProcessHandle::sendSigTerm() const
}
}

bool Spawner::ProcessHandle::end()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the reason for having this function as well as killDeployment + wait(). Looks like is a re-implementaion of the same thing (also re-implementing the sendSig* functions), and it looks like end() is called nowhere.. so I wonder what's its purpose.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Completely true, I forgot to remove this one. It is now gone.

@@ -344,6 +372,24 @@ void Spawner::waitUntilAllReady(const base::Time& timeout)
}
}

bool Spawner::killDeployment(const std::string &dplName)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

look at comment above regarding end()

Spawner::ProcessHandle &handle = getDeployment(dplName);

handle.sendSigInt();
if(!handle.wait())
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the parameters for wait should be configurable here. I'd suggest to add them also to killDeployment

{
deployment->renameTask(deployment->getLoggerName(), deployment->getName() + "_Logger");
}

ProcessHandle *handle = new ProcessHandle(deployment, redirectOutput, logDir);

handles.push_back(handle);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think handles never get removed from the handles-variable. Thus there's no real cleanup happening. This problem apparently was present also before the MR, but with the issue described at alive this might lead to unexpected behavior...

e.g. A single deployment was killed, afterwards killAll is called. In this case alive will be called on the already-terminated process again.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems to be the case, I need to look into this a bit further. But I think this issue existed before already.

@skasperski
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed alive() method.
-> What was the problem / What is fixed by this commit ?

Oh, that message was kinda deprecated. The actual functional error was alrady solved before. However I removed the std::cout calls in favor of exceptions, thus enabling the caller to see that something actually went wrong here. As the name of the method suggests, we don't want to have a full status update but just an info whether the process is still running or not.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants