Re: Revision of GNU Parallel's processing of SIGTERM

[Ole Tange]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Martin d'Anjou
<martin.danjou14@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15-04-12 07:14 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Martin d'Anjou
>> <martin.danjou14@gmail.com> wrote:
:
>>> Q2:

> In terms of a real life scenario, I can offer an overview of my workflow.
>
> Some processes take a long time to terminate from the point of view of GNU
> Parallel, because from the time GNU Parallel issues the TERM signal and the
> time GNU Parallel hears back from the processes, there could be an amount of
> time longer than 200ms. For example, the current chain of command with
> SIGTERM in my workflow is [long]
:
> The delay between sending SIGTERM and
> hearing back from the child-most process can be more than 200ms.

Can I ask you to measure it? If we are talking 1000 ms I will not see
a big problem in changing the 200 ms to 1000 ms.

> I hope this demonstrates that in some cases, extending the grace period
> beyond 200ms benefits the user.

It does; but it does not justify why it cannot be a (bigger) constant.


/Ole