On 2023-02-16 12:17 p.m., Mark Hindley wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 sysvinit-utils
> Control: affects -1 nbd-client
>
> Jesse,
>
> Thanks for you quick reply.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:54:32AM -0400, Jesse Smith wrote:
>> I see two possible ways we could fix this:
>>
>> 1. Create a command line flag which disables the SIGSTOP and SIGCONT
>> signals being sent. This is an easy fix, quick and dirty. The potential
>> downside is if someone disables the STOP signal then maybe processes
>> terminate, move groups, or are replaced before we get around to sending
>> them the KILL signal. This probably won't happen, but it means killall5
>> is working with a "moving target".
>>
>> 2. We can run SIGSTOP on all processes _except_ those in the omit list.
>> This will be a lot slower than the existing "kill(-1, SIGSTOP)" call we
>> currently make. But I think it's more correct.
>>
>> Basically the new work flow would look like this:
>>
>> 1. Send all processes except those omitted the SIGSTOP command.
>> 2. Send all processes except those omitted the SIGKILL command.
>> 3. Send all processes except those omitted the SIGCONT command.
>>
>> Option #2 is slow and ugly, but seems "correct" from a behaviour point
>> of view.
> I don't really like #1: it will mean patching callers to get the (more?) correct
> behaviour. So #2 seems better. Will it be significantly slower?. You could only
> use it when omitpid is specified? If there are no omitpids, the current
> behaviour seems fine.
>
>
if I had to guess, I'd assume the new approach would be about 3x slower.
But we're probably talking about loops that will finish in a thousandths
of a second. From a practical point of view, I don't think anyone will
see the difference. And, as you pointed out, if there is no list of
omitted PIDs then we can revert to the old way of doing things.

I'll look at fixing this and testing it this weekend. See if I can fix
this without breaking anything else.

- Jesse