Skip to content

unit: add jobs that were skipped because of ratelimit back to run_queue#21543

Merged
yuwata merged 1 commit intosystemd:mainfrom
poettering:issue-21458-empty-run-queue-dumbed-down
Nov 29, 2021
Merged

unit: add jobs that were skipped because of ratelimit back to run_queue#21543
yuwata merged 1 commit intosystemd:mainfrom
poettering:issue-21458-empty-run-queue-dumbed-down

Conversation

@poettering
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Assumption in edc027b was that job we first skipped because of active
ratelimit is still in run_queue. Hence we trigger the queue and dispatch
it in the next iteration. Actually we remove jobs from run_queue in
job_run_and_invalidate() before we call unit_start(). Hence if we want
to attempt to run the job again in the future we need to add it back
to run_queue.

Fixes #21458

Assumption in edc027b was that job we first skipped because of active
ratelimit is still in run_queue. Hence we trigger the queue and dispatch
it in the next iteration. Actually we remove jobs from run_queue in
job_run_and_invalidate() before we call unit_start(). Hence if we want
to attempt to run the job again in the future we need to add it back
to run_queue.

Fixes systemd#21458
@poettering
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

This is a dumbed down version of #21524. It's the original patch from @msekletar but adds no extra state, and rather adds too much to the run queue than trying to optimize here too much.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@bluca bluca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, but we should wait until ubuntu CI's infra is back online

@msekletar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

LGTM

@mrc0mmand
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@poettering looks like Ubuntu CIs are back in business - could you do a re-push to trigger them?

@bluca
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

bluca commented Nov 29, 2021

@poettering looks like Ubuntu CIs are back in business - could you do a re-push to trigger them?

no need, retriggered them manually

@bluca bluca added good-to-merge/waiting-for-ci 👍 PR is good to merge, but CI hasn't passed at time of review. Please merge if you see CI has passed and removed good-to-merge/waiting-for-reporter-feedback 👍 labels Nov 29, 2021
@bluca
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

bluca commented Nov 29, 2021

(ignore focal-i386, I triggered it by mistake, it doesn't exist anymore)

@keszybz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

keszybz commented Nov 29, 2021

Looks reasonable, but for this one, let's wait for the CI to finish. So far it looks good.

@yuwata
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

yuwata commented Nov 29, 2021

All CIs are green (except for focal-i386)! Merging.

@yuwata yuwata merged commit c29e6a9 into systemd:main Nov 29, 2021
@keszybz keszybz removed the good-to-merge/waiting-for-ci 👍 PR is good to merge, but CI hasn't passed at time of review. Please merge if you see CI has passed label Nov 30, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

TEST-37-RUNTIMEDIRECTORYPRESERVE gets stuck on focal-s390x, focal-ppc64el

6 participants