StopContainer: return if cleanup process changed state #17165
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The code can be simplified by using a timer directly. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] - should not change behavior. Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
Move the stopSignal decl into the branch where it's actually used. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] as it's just a small refactor. Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
openshift-ci
bot
added
release-note-none
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
Add a comment when SIGKILL is being used. It may help future readers better comprehend what's going on and why. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] - cannot test a comment :^) Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
Commit 067442b improved stopping/killing a container by detecting whether the cleanup process has already fired and changed the state of the container. Further improve on that by returning early instead of trying to wait for the PID to finish. At that point we know that the container has exited but the previous PID may have been recycled already by the kernel. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] - the absence of the two flaking tests recorded in containers#17142 will tell. Fixes: containers#17142 Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
giuseppe
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2023
libpod/oci_conmon_common.go
Outdated
| } | ||
| time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since we are touching it, I'd reduce the sleep interval here, we'll detect faster when the container exited. kill(2) is fast, no need to wait so long: 10ms is more than enough.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, vrothberg The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Kill is a fast syscall, so we can reduce the sleep time from 100ms to 10ms in hope to speed things up a bit. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <[email protected]>
|
/lgtm |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/hold cancel |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
This was referenced Jan 24, 2023
github-actions
bot
added
the
locked - please file new issue/PR
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Commit 067442b improved stopping/killing a container by detecting
whether the cleanup process has already fired and changed the state of
the container. Further improve on that by returning early instead of
trying to wait for the PID to finish. At that point we know that the
container has exited but the previous PID may have been recycled
already by the kernel.
[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] - the absence of the two flaking tests recorded
in #17142 will tell.
Fixes: #17142
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg [email protected]
@edsantiago PTAL
@containers/podman-maintainers
Also did some minor refactoring in the function(s).
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?