On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> If KillUserProcessess is on, systemd logs when cleanup happens (in v231+).
> It is up to admin to connect the dots.
Yep, it is different with systemd v231.
systemd[1]: user@1000.service: Killing process 4866 (btrfs) with signal SIGKILL.
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 02:10:32PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >> > The actual work of pvmove is not done by the command you run; that sets
>
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > The actual work of pvmove is not done by the command you run; that sets
>> > it up and it is run in the background (by a kernel thread). All th
Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > The actual work of pvmove is not done by the command you run; that sets
> > it up and it is run in the background (by a kernel thread). All the
> > command you run does then is periodically check and p
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
>> Maybe someone can beat me to a test involving pvmove from one disk to
>> another, initiated in GNOME Terminal, and logging out before it
>> completes. I'd love to know what state it puts the system in...
Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
> Maybe someone can beat me to a test involving pvmove from one disk to
> another, initiated in GNOME Terminal, and logging out before it
> completes. I'd love to know what state it puts the system in...
The actual work of pvmove is not done by the command you
On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 11:31 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Can anyone explain why the feature works for Logout, but doesn't work
> for Restart or Shutdown when initiated in the logged in shell
> session?
Aha! I manually enabled this for F23 hoping to eliminate the 90s wait
I seem to get on every ex
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Can anyone explain why the feature works for Logout, but doesn't work
> for Restart or Shutdown when initiated in the logged in shell session?
>
> KillUserProcesses true does not kill user gdm session on restart,
> restart hangs 1m30s
> https
Can anyone explain why the feature works for Logout, but doesn't work
for Restart or Shutdown when initiated in the logged in shell session?
KillUserProcesses true does not kill user gdm session on restart,
restart hangs 1m30s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341837
I'm not running an
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:17:49AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> > > We can meet in the middle and make this LOG_NOTICE. That's not the
> > > usual LOG_INFO, but also not the higher LOG_WARNING.
> >
> >
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > We can meet in the middle and make this LOG_NOTICE. That's not the
> > usual LOG_INFO, but also not the higher LOG_WARNING.
>
> Just to verify: I assume you mean that the killing of these processes
> woul
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 15.07.16 08:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 09.07.16 21:20, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > In either case
On Fri, 15.07.16 08:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 09.07.16 21:20, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> > In either case it will be up to FESCO to decide and set guidelines on
> >> > implem
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Sat, 09.07.16 21:20, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> > In either case it will be up to FESCO to decide and set guidelines on
>> > implementation and for us grognards to either deal with the change or
>> > go find an O
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:11:12PM -0400, Garry Williams wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:56:41 AM EDT Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> > I have KillUserProcesses=yes set in Fedora 24 for
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:11:12PM -0400, Garry Williams wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:56:41 AM EDT Chris Murphy wrote:
>> > I have KillUserProcesses=yes set in Fedora 24 for some time now. I'm
>> > noticing that I still often have 90
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 03:04 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I want to add a couple more to the scope: dnf and PackageKit. I don't
> care *how* dnf and PackageKit get started. If they're making changes,
> systemd should *not* zap them on logout.
PackageKit has been a daemon from the start (and
On 07/07/2016 08:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KillUserProcesses_by_default
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Copying my response from https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:11:12PM -0400, Garry Williams wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:56:41 AM EDT Chris Murphy wrote:
> > I have KillUserProcesses=yes set in Fedora 24 for some time now. I'm
> > noticing that I still often have 90 second delays if I restart or
> > shutdown, more than half
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:56:41 AM EDT Chris Murphy wrote:
> I have KillUserProcesses=yes set in Fedora 24 for some time now. I'm
> noticing that I still often have 90 second delays if I restart or
> shutdown, more than half the time.
Yup. Me too.
[snip]
> I have no idea how to collect
> more
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> In my opinion the proposal needs to be amended in the following ways:
>
>
> Scope:
>
> Understanding the scope of this Change requires understanding how many
> programs there are that will have to be adapted to avoid getting killed.
> Theref
In my opinion the proposal needs to be amended in the following ways:
Scope:
Understanding the scope of this Change requires understanding how many
programs there are that will have to be adapted to avoid getting killed.
Therefore the Scope section should contain a complete list of affected
pack
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:34:04PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 07/12/2016 06:15 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >That's hardly useful, as "screen" alone is useless as it's just a
> >frontend to other programs (such as a shell that is run inside the
> >"screen" instance), and if we kill tho
On 07/12/2016 06:15 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
That's hardly useful, as "screen" alone is useless as it's just a
frontend to other programs (such as a shell that is run inside the
"screen" instance), and if we kill those, then "screen" doesn't need
to be around either...
Right---the entire pro
I have KillUserProcesses=yes set in Fedora 24 for some time now. I'm
noticing that I still often have 90 second delays if I restart or
shutdown, more than half the time. If I log out, I always get fast log
outs, and more often than not a restart/shutdown from the login window
is also fast. So there
On Sat, 09.07.16 21:20, Nico Kadel-Garcia (nka...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > In either case it will be up to FESCO to decide and set guidelines on
> > implementation and for us grognards to either deal with the change or
> > go find an OS we can be happier in.
>
> It looks to me like the critical chan
On Sat, 09.07.16 17:09, Ben Rosser (rosser@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
>
> > I think this needs to be rethought. The options right now are, modify
> > an as yet unknown quantity of background programs so they aren't
> > killed on user logout; vs
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Alex Thomas wrote:
>
> As it looks from my vantage point, the choice is either carry a patch
> to revert this change in systemd, or accept the load of carrying an unknown
> number of patches to allow other software to accommodate this change.
>
> My sugges
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 9 July 2016 at 19:40, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>> wrote:
> s.
>>
>>> But if you have this kind of setup in place, then
>>> simply set KillUserProcesses=no and carry on.
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> The change is proposed.
As I understand it, a change proposal should have some concrete plans,
not just a "fix some stuff (we don't know what or how yet)". Isn't
there supposed to be at least some outline of what's involved?
--
Chris Adams
--
dev
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this needs to be rethought. The options right now are, modify
> >> an as yet unknown quantity of background
On 9 July 2016 at 19:40, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
s.
>
>> But if you have this kind of setup in place, then
>> simply set KillUserProcesses=no and carry on.
>
> Please don't burn the cycles of admins who have better work to do
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 07:32:01AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> > = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ch
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
>>
>> I think this needs to be rethought. The options right now are, modify
>> an as yet unknown quantity of background programs so they aren't
>> killed on user logout; vs logout/restart/sh
+1 to the idea that we really do not know how many programs will be
affected by this change. We do know that the tmux folks have shot down
making any changes to accommodate systemd. As they value cross-platform
compatibility, this is understandable.
As it looks from my vantage point, the
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
> I think this needs to be rethought. The options right now are, modify
> an as yet unknown quantity of background programs so they aren't
> killed on user logout; vs logout/restart/shutdown likely hanging for
> 90 seconds. It seems the work ar
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 07:32:01AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> > = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ch
On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 07:32:01AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KillUserProcesses_by_default
> >
> > Change owner(s):
> > * Zbignie
On Sat, 2016-07-09 at 07:32 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >
> > = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KillUserProcesses_by_default
> >
> > Change owner(s):
> > * Zbigniew
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KillUserProcesses_by_default
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>
> Set the default policy to terminate processes in sess
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:51:38PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
> wrote:
> > On 2016-07-07 05:13, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >>
> >> == Scope ==
> >> * Proposal owners:
> >> - work upstream to clarify what is the best way for programs to mark
> >> themselves
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
> On 2016-07-07 05:13, Jan Kurik wrote:
>>
>> == Scope ==
>> * Proposal owners:
>> - work upstream to clarify what is the best way for programs to mark
>> themselves to survive logout
>> - update the documentation with more explanations and
On 2016-07-07 05:13, Jan Kurik wrote:
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
- work upstream to clarify what is the best way for programs to mark
themselves to survive logout
- update the documentation with more explanations and examples, as we
learn what people find confusing in the current scheme of th
43 matches
Mail list logo
