[systemd-devel] systemd: support for new timeouts in .service

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 23.07.12 14:57, Michal Schmidt (mschmidt at redhat.com) wrote:

> 
> On 07/20/2012 12:08 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> >we found this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807885 and
> >we already invested some effort to introducing new timeout types. We
> >have a patch prepared introducing new service timeout types, namely
> >TimoutStartSec and TimeoutStopSec.
> 
> I agree with the decision to introduce the two new timeout options,
> while still supporting TimeoutSec for compatibility.
>
> > Semantic would be as follows. Old
> >timeout TimeoutSec defines common timeout for both, start and stop of
> >service. If new timeout is used it will override current setting, which
> >is either specified by TimeoutSec or default.  However another variant
> >which was proposed by Michal Schmidt, changes described behavior in a
> >way that timeout which is specified last in unit file is applied and
> >always overrides the previous settings.
> 
> I don't think this description explains the difference well enough,
> so let me help by providing some examples:
> 
> Example #1:
> 
> /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service:
>  ...
>  [Service]
>  TimeoutSec=100
>  ...
> 
> /etc/systemd/system/foo.service:
>  .include /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service
>  [Service]
>  TimeoutStopSec=200
> 
> In this example I believe we both agree that the result would be:
>  start timeout = 100
>  stop timeout  = 200
> 
> 
> Example #2:
> 
> /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service:
>  ...
>  [Service]
>  TimeoutStartSec=50
>  TimeoutStopSec=100
>  ...
> 
> /etc/systemd/system/foo.service:
>  .include /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service
>  [Service]
>  TimeoutSec=200
> 
> In this example we disagree. In your proposal the TimeoutSec would
> be entirely ignored, because new timeout options were used. I.e. the
> result would be:
>  start timeout = 50
>  stop timeout  = 100
> With my proposal the result would be:
>  start timeout = 200
>  stop timeout  = 200
> because the TimeoutSec would have the same effect as setting both
> TimeoutStartSec= and TimeoutStopSec=.
> 
> The advantage of my proposal is that the administrator's override
> (which may have been in place before the introduction of the new
> timeout options) is still effective.

I agree fully with Michal. This appears to be the best way to expose
these new options.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.