server: Remove the mount points after stopping the containers #383
+6
−4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
|
Reviewed.. LGTM |
mrunalp
reviewed
Mar 3, 2017
server/container_remove.go
Outdated
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to delete container %s: %v", c.ID(), err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| s.releaseContainerName(c.Name()) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can keep the removing in-memory state last. That way we can support idempotent operations and clear them from in-memory state only once the container is removed and storage is cleaned up. WDYT?
mrunalp
reviewed
Mar 3, 2017
server/sandbox_remove.go
Outdated
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to remove pod sandbox %s: %v", sb.id, err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| s.releaseContainerName(podInfraContainer.Name()) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here. The in-memory state could be cleared after storage cleanup.
Contributor
|
hmm dualing lock metaphors.. in-memory state vs reference to mount point.. |
mrunalp
reviewed
Mar 3, 2017
server/container_remove.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| s.removeContainer(c) | ||
|
|
||
| if err := s.ctrIDIndex.Delete(c.ID()); err != nil { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This block is also in-memory state and can be moved down.
mrunalp
reviewed
Mar 3, 2017
server/sandbox_remove.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| s.releasePodName(sb.name) | ||
| s.removeSandbox(sb.id) | ||
| if err := s.podIDIndex.Delete(sb.id); err != nil { |
mrunalp
reviewed
Mar 4, 2017
server/sandbox_remove.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| s.removeContainer(podInfraContainer) | ||
| sb.infraContainer = nil | ||
| s.removeSandbox(sb.id) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just this line should be moved after s.ctrIDIndex.Delete. Otherwise looks good. Thanks!
Member
|
|
When starting pods or containers, we create the mount points first. It seems natural to do something symetrical when stopping pods or containers, i.e. removing the mount point at last. Also, the current logic may not work with VM based containers as the hypervisor may hold a reference on the mount point while we're trying to remove them. Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
Author
Member
|
LGTM, ping @mrunalp |
Member
|
LGTM |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
When starting pods or containers, we create the mount points
first. It seems natural to do something symetrical when stopping
pods or containers, i.e. removing the mount point at last.
Also, the current logic may not work with VM based containers as the
hypervisor may hold a reference on the mount point while we're trying to
remove them.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz [email protected]