-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 192
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WIP: Implement force-kill option in verdi process kill #6575
Open
agoscinski
wants to merge
7
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/6524/force-kill
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1e9fcdf
WIP: Implement force-kill option in verdi process kill
agoscinski 3cb8539
[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
pre-commit-ci[bot] 75bb430
working implementation
khsrali cad6738
tests implemented
khsrali dbd0a06
review applied
khsrali 144680d
more test added
khsrali bb31b69
Merge branch 'main' into fix/6524/force-kill
khsrali File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't think this warning is correct. When a
TransportTaskException
is raised, theWaiting.execute
method catches it and pauses the process.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I'm not wrong, what you are referring to is already in my test scenario
(see here
test_process.py::test_process_kill
# 10)And is being passed, meaning the job is being
EXCEPTED
, not paused..(maybe there is a bug somewhere else?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand. The exception being caught here is thrown by
do_kill
so it is the kill operation (i.e. getting the transport or using it to call the kill command of the scheduler) that excepted, not the process itself. The exception is then reraised as aTransportTaskException
which is caught inWaiting.execute
and rethrown asPauseInterruption
on line 571, which means the process is going into pause. So how does this mean the process is already excepted?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see.
Just added one more test, and I'm now explicitly patching and returning
TransportTaskException
fromtask_kill_job
.We still receive
EXCEPTED
regardless of whether the process was running normally or was stuck in EBM.Haven't figured out why yet.