[Users] Question about forking

Wed May 16 18:59:05 CEST 2007

Hi Anatoly,

Thanks for your work-around - I'll try it. However, I did try the test
you described without the -D option and here are the results:

root at homer:/# ps -ef | grep openser
sipproxy 29793 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29788 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29791 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29789 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
root 29797 29266   0 12:52:28 pts/1       0:00 grep openser
sipproxy 29795 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29786     1   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29794 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29792 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29790 29787   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser
sipproxy 29787 29786   0 12:52:24 ?           0:00 openser

root at homer:/# kill 29786
root at homer:/# ps -ef | grep openser
    root 29799 29266   0 12:52:50 pts/1       0:00 grep openser

As you can see, the child (29787) kills the grandchild (29790) when
the parent (29786) is killed. I'm not sure why it behaves differently.

Tim

On 5/16/07, Anatoly Pidruchny <apidruchny at newxt.com> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> As far as I know, the problem with the left over openser process that
> you described is not caused by the patch. If you run openser manually
> without -D option, then kill the main process, you will get exactly the
> same result. The main openser process will kill all its children, but
> will not kill its grandchildren. The reason is that the main openser
> process does not know anything about its grandchildren. Theoretically,
> the process that forked a child (for example, your process with PID
> 29744) is supposed to kill its children (for example, your process with
> PID 29747) when it is terminated. But this does not happen. I think it
> is a known issue (bug?) with openser. May be if you open a feature (or
> bug?) request then this issue will be resolved.
>
> By the way, we do not have this problem. I think the reason is that you
> use some module that we do not use. I grepped the openser sources and
> found a number of places in modules where a child process is forked. In
> our case, I think we never hit code that creates any of the "child of a
> child" processes.
>
> As a workaround, did you try to kill all the left over openser processes
> from the ./finish file?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anatoly.
> > Hey Anatoly,
> >
> > I've been running with your patch and it works, but there is one issue
> > that I want to bring up. After openser forks, it creates processes as
> > follows:
> >
> > sipproxy 29745 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29751 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29748 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29750 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29743 29432   0 11:32:37 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29752 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29744 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29746 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29749 29743   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> > sipproxy 29747 29744   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> >
> > You can note that the parent PID is 29743 and has several children,
> > but for some reason, process 29744 also spawns the child process
> > 29747. When I use runsv to start the process, it notes the process
> > that it creates is 29743. Then when I terminate with runsv, it kills
> > 29743 - which kills all of it's children, but leaves PID 29747
> > running. Since it's parent was killed, PID 29747 is adopted by the
> > init process (PID 1). Here is an example of this done by hand (with a
> > kill of 29743):
> >
> > root at homer:/# kill 29743
> > root at homer:/# ps -ef | grep openser
> >    root 29756 29266   0 11:35:19 pts/1       0:00 grep openser
> > sipproxy 29747     1   0 11:32:38 pts/2       0:00 openser -D
> >
> > Please let me know if you can assist here.
> >
> > thanks much,
> > Tim
> >
> > On 5/7/07, Anatoly Pidruchny <apidruchny at newxt.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, Tim,
> >>
> >> there is a patch (that I submitted) that allows to run the main openser
> >> process in foreground and fork child processes as usual. No developer
> >> has reviewed the patch yet. I hope this patch will be accepted soon. The
> >> patch is simple and we use it for a long time now. You can also take the
> >> patch and use it.
> >>
> >> The patch is:
> >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1689998&group_id=139143&atid=743022
> >>
> >>
> >> Anatoly
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I want to start openser with runsv which requires that the starting
> >> > process run in the foreground. My problem is that I also want to
> >> > listen on a couple of different ports. When I set forking = yes, it
> >> > will listen on multiple ports, but runsv won't work. When I set
> >> > forking=no, then openser will only listen on the first specified port.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any way around this? Can I have the starting process run in
> >> > the foreground and fork other processes that listen to the ports in
> >> > the background?
> >> >
> >> > Here is the error message:
> >> >
> >> > WARNING: no fork mode  and more than one listen address found(will use
> >> > only the the first one)
> >> >
> >> > Here are the associated configuration lines:
> >> >
> >> > fork=no
> >> >
> >> > children=32
> >> >
> >> > # Local IP address/port pairs to listen to
> >> > listen=65.185.233.55:5061
> >> > listen=65.185.233.55:5062
> >> >
> >> > # Alias IP address/port pairs
> >> > alias=65.185.233.104:5061
> >> > alias=65.185.233.104:5062
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> > Tim
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Users mailing list
> >> > Users at openser.org
> >> > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>