Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 21:32:16 -0700 From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: can we get some interaction between halt/reboot and bhyve? Message-ID: <5562A5D0.7050207@redbarn.org> In-Reply-To: <20150525030835.GB37063@funkthat.com> References: <5562755C.8090407@redbarn.org> <20150525030835.GB37063@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Shouldn't shutdown be used instead of reboot/halt? This allows > various rc.d scripts to run, and you can use that to make sure all > your bhyve instances are shutdown... yes. but, if the reboot or poweroff or halt command is used, i'd like my bhyve's to have enough time to umount their ufs zvol's. the rc.d script should pass along some softer signal that can cause the bhyve to do its own clean shutdown. but where SIGTERM is used, which is passed on as ACPI power-off, i'd like busy (that is, not hung, trying hard to shut down cleanly) bhyve's to get more time. the current poweroff/halt/reboot command only looks for evidence of paging as a reason to extend the time between SIGTERM and SIGKILL. i'd like to give it some bhyve-relevant additional reason to delay that SIGKILL. -- Paul Vixie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5562A5D0.7050207>