Prefer sending signals to kernel process group #743
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Per this comment in #104, we should restore the behavior that signaling the process group is preferred over the Popen
kill()andterminate()methods (which essentially signal the process). This pull request updates the LocalProvisioner to sendSIGKILL/SIGTERMto the process group, prior to falling back to Popenkill()/terminate(), respectively.As also noted in the comment, this functionality is masked by the fact that we still prefer a message-based shutdown unless the message-based shutdown fails or an auto-restart event occurs (when the kernel process can no longer be tracked), in which case the "immediate" form of restart occurs (using the signal-based approach).