In my process I need to start/restart another process.
Currently I use a thread with a tiny stack size and the following code:
void startAndMonitorA()
{
while(true)
{
system("myProcess");
LOG("myProcess crashed");
usleep(1000 * 1000);
}
}
I feel like that's not best practice. I have no idea about the resources the std::system() call is blocking or wasting. I'm on an embedded Linux - so in general I try to care about resources.
One problematic piece is restarting immediately: if the child process fails to start that is going to cause 100% CPU usage. It may be a transient error in the child process (e.g. cannot connect to a server). It may be a good idea to add a least one second pause before trying to restart.
What system call does on Linux is:
Sets up signals SIGINT and SIGQUIT to be ignored.
Blocks signal SIGCHLD.
fork()
Child process calls exec() shell, passing the command line to the shell.
Parent process calls waitpid() that blocks the thread till the child process terminates.
Parent process restores its signal dispositions.
If you were to re-implement the functionality of system you would probably omit step 5 (along with steps 1, 2 and 6) to avoid blocking the thread and rely on SIGCHLD to get notified when the child process has terminated and needs to be restarted.
In other words, the bare minimum would be to set up a signal handler for SIGCHLD and call fork and exec.
The code as shown would be adequate for most circumstances. If you really care about resource usage, you should be aware that you are starting (and keeping around) a thread for each process you are monitoring. If your program has an event loop anyway, that kind of thing can be avoided at the cost of some additional effort (and an increase in complexity).
Implementing this would entail the following:
Instead of calling system(), use fork() and exec() to start the external program. Store its PID in a global table.
Set a SIGCHLD handler that notifies the event loop of the exit of a child, e.g. by writing a byte to a pipe monitored by the event loop.
When a child exits, run waitpid with the WNOHANG flag in a loop that runs for as long as there are children to reap. waitpid() will return the PID of the child that exited, so that you know to remove its PID from the table, and to schedule a timeout that restarts it.
Related
In my Qt C++ program I created a process as follows:
myProcess = new QProcess();
myProcess->start(programpath, arguments);
Terminating the process is handled as follows:
myProcess->terminate();
Terminating the child process with QProcess::kill(),terminate() or close() works, but I don't want to use it because it doesn't give the child process a chance to clean up before exiting.
Is there any other way to exit the process? Thanks!
The polite way would be for the parent process to politely ask the child process to go away. Then when the child process exits (of its own volition), the QProcess object will emit a finished(int, QProcess::ExitStatus) signal, and you can have a slot connected to that signal that will continue your process (e.g. by deleting the QProcess object at that time). (Or if you don't mind blocking your Qt event loop for a little while, you could just call waitForFinished() on the QProcess object after asking it to exit, and waitForFinished() won't return until the process has gone away or the timeout period has elapsed)
Of course for the above to work you need some way to ask the child process to exit. How you go about doing that will depend on what the child process is running. If you're lucky, you are in control of the child process's code, in which case you can modify it to exit in response to some action of the parent process -- for example, you could code the child process to exit when its stdin descriptor is closed, and have the parent process call closeWriteChannel() on the QProcess object to cause that to happen. Or if you're running under Linux/Unix you could send a SIGINT signal to the child process and the child process could set up a handler that would catch the signal and start an orderly shutdown. Or if you want something really stupid-quick and dirty, have the child process periodically check for the presence of a file at a well-known location (e.g. "/tmp/hey-child-process-PIDNUMBERHERE-go-away.txt" or something) and the parent process would create such a file when it wants the child to go away. Not that I'd recommend that last method as I don't think it would be very robust, except maybe as a proof of concept.
terminate actually gives the process an chance to clean up. The program being terminated just has to take that chance i.e. the system sents a SIGTERM and the application and it can ignore that and exit cleanly on its own. If this is still not nice enough then you have to implement your own way of asking the application to quit. Jeremy Friesner made some good successions. If the application code is not written by yourself you'll have to read the documentation for that program closer, maybe its documented how to do that.
I am working on a game, so at one point I had to use fork(), the main thread runs opengl graphics, and the child thread runs the game logic.
Now I have a problem. At some point, the user may press the 'Exit' button inside the game, which is handled by the secondary thread. Also, at some point the user may click the X button to exit the game which is handled by the main (glut) thread. So here is my question: how can I kill the other running thread, and exit?
Right now, if I close the window, the second thread keeps running, and if the second thread finishes, the first one keeps running.
Handling the 'X' button could be done using the atexit function, but I haven't found a (safe) way of killing glutMainLoop().
If you are actually calling fork() (instead of starting a new thread) then you are actually creating another running process. When fork() is called, it returns a process-id to the parent process. That can be passed to kill() to kill the process. Under linux this looks like:
#include <signal.h>
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid == 0) {
// you are in the child process
} else if (pid > 0) {
// you are in the parent process
...
// send a termination signal
kill(pid, SIGTERM);
} else {
// fork had an error which should be logged...
}
You need to choose what signal to send the process. SIGKILL (9) kills it hard for example.
Please be precise about thread and process as they describe different subjects.
Since you use fork() you are actually dealing with processes. I recommend that you use threads instead, since it is much more memory efficient (since the program needs to be in memory only one time) and easier to handle. Of course you have to deal with critical sections yourself.
Here is a good example for working with threads.
If you insist on using processes and fork() you can still send signals and implement specific signal handlers. I'd also read some articles about IPC (Inter Process Communication) like http://tldp.org/LDP/lpg/node7.html.
I'm currently in the process of building a small shell within C++.
A user may enter a job at the prompt such as exe1 && exe2 &. Similar to the BASH shell, I will only execute exe2 if exe1 exits successfully. In addition, the entire job must be performed in the background (as specified by the trailing & operator).
Right now, I have a jobManager which handles execution of jobs and a job structure which contains the job's executable and their individual arguments / conditions. A job is started by calling fork() and then calling execvp() with the proper arguments. When a job ends, I have a signal handler for SIGCHLD, in which I perform wait() to determine which process has just ended. When exe1 ends, I observe its exit code and make a determination as to whether I should proceed to launch exe2.
My concern is how do I launch exe2. I am concerned that if I use my jobManager start function from the context of my SIGCHLD handler, I could end up with too many SIGCHLD handler functions hanging out on the stack (if there were 10 conditional executions, for instance). In addition, it just doesn't seem like a good idea to be starting the next execution from the signal handler, even if it is occurring indirectly. (I tried doing something similar 1.5 years ago when I was just learning about signal handling -- I seem to recall it failing on me).
All of the above needs to be able to occur in the background and I want to avoid having the jobManager sitting in a busy wait just waiting for exe1 to return. I would also prefer to not have a separate thread sitting around just waiting to start the execution of another process. However, instructing my jobManager to begin execution of the next process from the SIGCHLD handler seems like poor code.
Any feedback is appriciated.
I see two ways:
1)Replace you sighandler with loop that call "sigwait" (see man 3 sigwait)
then in loop
2)before start create pipe, and in mainloop of your program use "select" on pipe handle to wait
events. In signal handler write to pipe, and in mainloop handle situation.
Hmmm that's a good one.
What about forking twice, once per process? The first one runs, and the second one stops. In the parent SIGCHLD handler, send a SIGCONT to the second child, if appropriate, which then goes off and runs the job. Naturally, you SIGKILL the second one if the first one shouldn't run, which should be safe because you won't really have set anything up.
How does that sound? You'll have a process sitting around doing nothing, but it shouldn't be for very long.
I am invoking several processes in my main and I can get the pid of that processes. Now I want to wait until all this processes have been finished and then clear the shared memory block from my parent process. Also if any of the process not finished and segfaulted I want to kill that process. So how to check from the pid of processes in my parent process code that a process is finished without any error or it gave broke down becoz of runtime error or any other cause, so that I can kill that process.
Also what if I want to see the status of some other process which is not a child process but its pid is known.
Code is appreciated( I am not looking for script but code ).
Look into waitpid(2) with WNOHANG option. Check the "fate" of the process with macros in the manual page, especially WIFSIGNALED().
Also, segfaulted process is already dead (unless SIGSEGV is specifically handled by the process, which is usually not a good idea.)
From your updates, it looks like you also want to check on other processes, which are not children of your current process.
You can look at /proc/{pid}/status to get an overview of what a process is currently doing, its either going to be:
Running
Stopped
Sleeping
Disk (D) sleep (i/o bound, uninterruptable)
Zombie
However, once a process dies (fully, unless zombied) so does its entry in /proc. There's no way to tell if it exited successfully, segfaulted, caught a signal that could not be handled, or failed to handle a signal that could be handled. Not unless its parent logs that information somewhere.
It sounds like your writing a watchdog for other processes that you did not start, rather than keeping track of child processes.
If a program segfaults, you won't need to kill it. It's dead already.
Use the wait and waitpid calls to wait for children to finish and check the status for some idea of how they exiting. See here for details on how to use these functions. Note especially the WIFSIGNALED and WTERMSIG macros.
waitpid() from SIGCHLD handler to catch the moment when application terminates itself. Note that if you start multiple processes you have to loop on waitpid() with WNOHANG until it returns 0.
kill() with signal 0 to check whether the process is still running. IIRC zombies still qualify as processes thus you have to have proper SIGCHLD handler for that to work.
I wrote a program that forks some processes with fork(). I want to kill all child- and the mother process if there is an error. If I use exit(EXIT_FAILURE) only the child process is killed.
I am thinking about a system("killall [program_name]") but there must be a better way...
Thank you all!
Lennart
Under UNIX, send SIGTERM, or SIGABRT, or SIGPIPE or sth. alike to the mother process. This signal will then be propagated to all clients automatically, if they do not explicitely block or ignore it.
Use getppid() to get the PID to send the signal to, and kill() to send the signal.
getppid() returns the process ID of
the parent of the calling process.
The kill() system call can be used to send any signal to any process group or process.
Remarks:
1. Using system is evil. Use internal functions to send signals.
2. killall would be even more evil. Consider several instances of your program running at once.
See How to make child process die after parent exits?
On Linux there's a prctl() call which is explicitly designed to send a signal to all of a process's children when the parent dies for whatever reason.
I need to check and can't do it where I am at the second, but I'm really not sure that ypnos' assertion about SIGPIPE, SIGTERM and SIGABRT being propagated to all children is correct.
However if you use kill(-ppid) (note the minus sign) then so long as the children are still in the parent process's process group then the kernel will deliver any signal to all of the children.
If your mother process is not started by the command line, it may not be the
process group leader, like as a deamon.
To ensure that your mother process is the process group leader, call setsid() during
your process initialization.
Then in your child process, if you want to cause all the processes to exit:
pgid = getpgid();
kill(pgid, 15);
You can also do tricks, like telling all your siblings to suspend:
kill(pgid, 20);
And resume:
kill(pgid, 18);
Consider suicidal approach - setting up an alarm() at the beginning of the process (both parent and child) with some positive number of seconds. If computation completes within that time and "there is no error", call alarm(0) to cancel the timer; otherwise the SIGALRM will kill the process (assuming you're not explicitly catching or ignoring it.)
Well, make a case against this instead of just down-voting :)