[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/3] introduce WatchdogSec and hook up the watchdog with the existing failure logic

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Tue Feb 7 06:24:27 PST 2012

On Tue, 07.02.12 13:18, Michael Olbrich (m.olbrich at pengutronix.de) wrote:

> Hi,
> I've been thinking a bit more about this. There are some problems with
> this. Consider a service that works like this:
> 2. might be a bit too restrictive for more relaxed scenarios, especially
> when combined with rebooting.
> And 3. is just the opposite. It's not enough for critical services. Also, I
> think there is a bit too much magic here for my taste.
> I'd probably prefer 4. with with an option to select between 1. and 2.
> Comments?

The startup phase (o.e. until READY=1) is covered by the usual timeout
logic anyway, so I'd just say that we shouldn't even wait for the first
WATCHDOG=1 to be sent, but immediately start the watchdog when we leave
the startup phase, if WatchdogSec= is set. That way, the startup phase
is covered by TimeoutSec= and the runtime by WatchdogSec= and beyond
these settings not further conditionalized. I think this would be simple
and straightforward to understand?


Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list