On 16.12.2015 13:02, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:07:23PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 16.12.2015 11:27, Ben Pfaff wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:58:56AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16.12.2015 09:53, Ben Pfaff wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:50:56AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>>> While killing OVS may not free all allocated resources. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eample: >>>>>> Socket for vhost-user port will stay in a system >>>>>> after 'systemctl stop openvswitch' and opening >>>>>> that port after restart will fail. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> version 2: >>>>>> * added '-T 1' >>>>>> * '-t $1' --> '-t $rundir/$1.$pid.ctl' >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Have you tested it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. On my setup it works. >>>> Only reason why it put RFC to that patch: >>>> Is all daemons have unixctl exit command? Or we can just let ovs-appctl to >>>> fail here >>>> in that case? >>> >>> I think that all of our current daemons do have an "exit" command, but >>> it might be worth removing the "2" after EXIT. The purpose of the >>> delays in this chain is to wait a bit for a given signal to be processed >>> through the operating system and the daemon, but EXIT should wait until >>> the process has actually exited, or at least get very close to that. >>> Maybe a short delay like .1 would be reasonable, to allow for a brief >>> race window. >> >> I don't think so, because ovs-vswitchd replies on connection to ovs-appctl >> immediately, but actual exiting performed while stopping execution in >> main loop. > > Then that means that this patch will generally make it take about 4 > longer to stop OVS, since killing each daemon will sleep for 2 seconds.
Ok. May be something like 'EXIT .1 .25 .65 1 1 TERM' will be better? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
