How to trigger elixir supervisor tree termination from a supervised worker process












5















I am trying to terminate whole supervision tree from a supervised worker process. Here is my supervision tree:



                   +--------------------------+
| |
+--------+ Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor +---------+
| | | |
| +-------------+------------+ |
| | |
| | |
v v v

+------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+
| | | | | |
| Job1: Supervisor | | Job2: Supervisor | | Job3: Supervisor |
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +-+-------- +---+--+ +------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
v v

+-------------------+ +--------------+
| | | |
| Progress Monitor: | | Work: Worker |
| Worker | | |
| | +--------------+
+-------------------+


Process life cycle:




  1. A Job is started via: DynamicSupervisor.start_child(__MODULE__, spec)

  2. Each job is a supervision tree as well: 1 supervisor (restart strategy - one_for_one) -> 2 workers


  3. Progress Monitor worker knows when the given job is done

  4. On job done, Progress Monitor worker makes an attempt to terminate the whole job supervision tree, by calling: DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid)


  5. Progress Monitor is expected to do cleanup steps in terminate callback - it is trapping exit signals


Problems and observations:





  1. DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child is a blocking call, which means it waits for all child processes to terminate as well, including the calling process - Progress Monitor


  2. Progress Monitor is in a deadlock and can not terminate. Parent supervisor sends :kill signal, which does not trigger terminate callback


Quick workarounds:





  1. Call DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child from Progress Monitor worker asynchronously:



    spawn(fn -> DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid) end)




  2. Define shutdown strategy for Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor:



    shutdown: 5_000



    It will wait at most 5s for a job supervision tree termination and then it will send shutdown exit signal. This will ensure terminate callback being called for Progress Monitor process.




Not happy with both of them.



Questions:




  1. How to trigger supervision tree termination from a worker process and avoid deadlocks?

  2. If terminating supervision tree from a worker is not the best practice, what is the recommended way then?

  3. Any recommendations how to redesign supervision tree to make graceful termination easier?










share|improve this question























  • It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

    – Paweł Obrok
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55
















5















I am trying to terminate whole supervision tree from a supervised worker process. Here is my supervision tree:



                   +--------------------------+
| |
+--------+ Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor +---------+
| | | |
| +-------------+------------+ |
| | |
| | |
v v v

+------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+
| | | | | |
| Job1: Supervisor | | Job2: Supervisor | | Job3: Supervisor |
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +-+-------- +---+--+ +------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
v v

+-------------------+ +--------------+
| | | |
| Progress Monitor: | | Work: Worker |
| Worker | | |
| | +--------------+
+-------------------+


Process life cycle:




  1. A Job is started via: DynamicSupervisor.start_child(__MODULE__, spec)

  2. Each job is a supervision tree as well: 1 supervisor (restart strategy - one_for_one) -> 2 workers


  3. Progress Monitor worker knows when the given job is done

  4. On job done, Progress Monitor worker makes an attempt to terminate the whole job supervision tree, by calling: DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid)


  5. Progress Monitor is expected to do cleanup steps in terminate callback - it is trapping exit signals


Problems and observations:





  1. DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child is a blocking call, which means it waits for all child processes to terminate as well, including the calling process - Progress Monitor


  2. Progress Monitor is in a deadlock and can not terminate. Parent supervisor sends :kill signal, which does not trigger terminate callback


Quick workarounds:





  1. Call DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child from Progress Monitor worker asynchronously:



    spawn(fn -> DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid) end)




  2. Define shutdown strategy for Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor:



    shutdown: 5_000



    It will wait at most 5s for a job supervision tree termination and then it will send shutdown exit signal. This will ensure terminate callback being called for Progress Monitor process.




Not happy with both of them.



Questions:




  1. How to trigger supervision tree termination from a worker process and avoid deadlocks?

  2. If terminating supervision tree from a worker is not the best practice, what is the recommended way then?

  3. Any recommendations how to redesign supervision tree to make graceful termination easier?










share|improve this question























  • It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

    – Paweł Obrok
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55














5












5








5


1






I am trying to terminate whole supervision tree from a supervised worker process. Here is my supervision tree:



                   +--------------------------+
| |
+--------+ Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor +---------+
| | | |
| +-------------+------------+ |
| | |
| | |
v v v

+------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+
| | | | | |
| Job1: Supervisor | | Job2: Supervisor | | Job3: Supervisor |
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +-+-------- +---+--+ +------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
v v

+-------------------+ +--------------+
| | | |
| Progress Monitor: | | Work: Worker |
| Worker | | |
| | +--------------+
+-------------------+


Process life cycle:




  1. A Job is started via: DynamicSupervisor.start_child(__MODULE__, spec)

  2. Each job is a supervision tree as well: 1 supervisor (restart strategy - one_for_one) -> 2 workers


  3. Progress Monitor worker knows when the given job is done

  4. On job done, Progress Monitor worker makes an attempt to terminate the whole job supervision tree, by calling: DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid)


  5. Progress Monitor is expected to do cleanup steps in terminate callback - it is trapping exit signals


Problems and observations:





  1. DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child is a blocking call, which means it waits for all child processes to terminate as well, including the calling process - Progress Monitor


  2. Progress Monitor is in a deadlock and can not terminate. Parent supervisor sends :kill signal, which does not trigger terminate callback


Quick workarounds:





  1. Call DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child from Progress Monitor worker asynchronously:



    spawn(fn -> DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid) end)




  2. Define shutdown strategy for Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor:



    shutdown: 5_000



    It will wait at most 5s for a job supervision tree termination and then it will send shutdown exit signal. This will ensure terminate callback being called for Progress Monitor process.




Not happy with both of them.



Questions:




  1. How to trigger supervision tree termination from a worker process and avoid deadlocks?

  2. If terminating supervision tree from a worker is not the best practice, what is the recommended way then?

  3. Any recommendations how to redesign supervision tree to make graceful termination easier?










share|improve this question














I am trying to terminate whole supervision tree from a supervised worker process. Here is my supervision tree:



                   +--------------------------+
| |
+--------+ Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor +---------+
| | | |
| +-------------+------------+ |
| | |
| | |
v v v

+------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+
| | | | | |
| Job1: Supervisor | | Job2: Supervisor | | Job3: Supervisor |
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +-+-------- +---+--+ +------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
v v

+-------------------+ +--------------+
| | | |
| Progress Monitor: | | Work: Worker |
| Worker | | |
| | +--------------+
+-------------------+


Process life cycle:




  1. A Job is started via: DynamicSupervisor.start_child(__MODULE__, spec)

  2. Each job is a supervision tree as well: 1 supervisor (restart strategy - one_for_one) -> 2 workers


  3. Progress Monitor worker knows when the given job is done

  4. On job done, Progress Monitor worker makes an attempt to terminate the whole job supervision tree, by calling: DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid)


  5. Progress Monitor is expected to do cleanup steps in terminate callback - it is trapping exit signals


Problems and observations:





  1. DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child is a blocking call, which means it waits for all child processes to terminate as well, including the calling process - Progress Monitor


  2. Progress Monitor is in a deadlock and can not terminate. Parent supervisor sends :kill signal, which does not trigger terminate callback


Quick workarounds:





  1. Call DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child from Progress Monitor worker asynchronously:



    spawn(fn -> DynamicSupervisor.terminate_child(__MODULE__, pid) end)




  2. Define shutdown strategy for Sup1: Dynamic Supervisor:



    shutdown: 5_000



    It will wait at most 5s for a job supervision tree termination and then it will send shutdown exit signal. This will ensure terminate callback being called for Progress Monitor process.




Not happy with both of them.



Questions:




  1. How to trigger supervision tree termination from a worker process and avoid deadlocks?

  2. If terminating supervision tree from a worker is not the best practice, what is the recommended way then?

  3. Any recommendations how to redesign supervision tree to make graceful termination easier?







erlang elixir otp supervisor






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 14 '18 at 10:31









mkorszunmkorszun

2,60732232




2,60732232













  • It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

    – Paweł Obrok
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55



















  • It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

    – Paweł Obrok
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55

















It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

– Paweł Obrok
Nov 14 '18 at 12:55





It seems to me that the Progress Monitor is unnecessary. Could you explain the reason why the Worker cannot simply do its thing and then terminate with reason normal? It seems like you could be using Task.Supervisor for this purpose.

– Paweł Obrok
Nov 14 '18 at 12:55












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














Just call it in async task Task.async(fn -> Process.exit(Sup1, :shutdown) end) it will terminate Sup1 and with it all children will shutdown



EDIT:



If you need prettier solution, it depends what elese you need. In most cases, I create Bootstrapper worker that will do initialization and some other stuff. You could add easily other features.



So considering above, and just roughly speaking, I would add in a layer above (AppSupervisor), Another DynamicSupervisor so it can start Bootstrapper and pass self() to it (or register it under local name to avoid this injection). After that, on start, Bootstrap worker will start Sup1 (your dynamic supervisor) and await for other messages, e.g. :terminate_sup1 that will shutdown Sup1 process. Later, in some of below workers you can shutdown Sup1 by casting :terminate_sup1 message to bootstraper. Also there is a door that allow you to start again Sup1 when another message is sent to bootstrap worker.



Further more, if you just need to shutdown Sup1, just go with Task. But if you need control, then put it into single worker process that should have control over it, when it is up or down.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53298072%2fhow-to-trigger-elixir-supervisor-tree-termination-from-a-supervised-worker-proce%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    Just call it in async task Task.async(fn -> Process.exit(Sup1, :shutdown) end) it will terminate Sup1 and with it all children will shutdown



    EDIT:



    If you need prettier solution, it depends what elese you need. In most cases, I create Bootstrapper worker that will do initialization and some other stuff. You could add easily other features.



    So considering above, and just roughly speaking, I would add in a layer above (AppSupervisor), Another DynamicSupervisor so it can start Bootstrapper and pass self() to it (or register it under local name to avoid this injection). After that, on start, Bootstrap worker will start Sup1 (your dynamic supervisor) and await for other messages, e.g. :terminate_sup1 that will shutdown Sup1 process. Later, in some of below workers you can shutdown Sup1 by casting :terminate_sup1 message to bootstraper. Also there is a door that allow you to start again Sup1 when another message is sent to bootstrap worker.



    Further more, if you just need to shutdown Sup1, just go with Task. But if you need control, then put it into single worker process that should have control over it, when it is up or down.






    share|improve this answer






























      1














      Just call it in async task Task.async(fn -> Process.exit(Sup1, :shutdown) end) it will terminate Sup1 and with it all children will shutdown



      EDIT:



      If you need prettier solution, it depends what elese you need. In most cases, I create Bootstrapper worker that will do initialization and some other stuff. You could add easily other features.



      So considering above, and just roughly speaking, I would add in a layer above (AppSupervisor), Another DynamicSupervisor so it can start Bootstrapper and pass self() to it (or register it under local name to avoid this injection). After that, on start, Bootstrap worker will start Sup1 (your dynamic supervisor) and await for other messages, e.g. :terminate_sup1 that will shutdown Sup1 process. Later, in some of below workers you can shutdown Sup1 by casting :terminate_sup1 message to bootstraper. Also there is a door that allow you to start again Sup1 when another message is sent to bootstrap worker.



      Further more, if you just need to shutdown Sup1, just go with Task. But if you need control, then put it into single worker process that should have control over it, when it is up or down.






      share|improve this answer




























        1












        1








        1







        Just call it in async task Task.async(fn -> Process.exit(Sup1, :shutdown) end) it will terminate Sup1 and with it all children will shutdown



        EDIT:



        If you need prettier solution, it depends what elese you need. In most cases, I create Bootstrapper worker that will do initialization and some other stuff. You could add easily other features.



        So considering above, and just roughly speaking, I would add in a layer above (AppSupervisor), Another DynamicSupervisor so it can start Bootstrapper and pass self() to it (or register it under local name to avoid this injection). After that, on start, Bootstrap worker will start Sup1 (your dynamic supervisor) and await for other messages, e.g. :terminate_sup1 that will shutdown Sup1 process. Later, in some of below workers you can shutdown Sup1 by casting :terminate_sup1 message to bootstraper. Also there is a door that allow you to start again Sup1 when another message is sent to bootstrap worker.



        Further more, if you just need to shutdown Sup1, just go with Task. But if you need control, then put it into single worker process that should have control over it, when it is up or down.






        share|improve this answer















        Just call it in async task Task.async(fn -> Process.exit(Sup1, :shutdown) end) it will terminate Sup1 and with it all children will shutdown



        EDIT:



        If you need prettier solution, it depends what elese you need. In most cases, I create Bootstrapper worker that will do initialization and some other stuff. You could add easily other features.



        So considering above, and just roughly speaking, I would add in a layer above (AppSupervisor), Another DynamicSupervisor so it can start Bootstrapper and pass self() to it (or register it under local name to avoid this injection). After that, on start, Bootstrap worker will start Sup1 (your dynamic supervisor) and await for other messages, e.g. :terminate_sup1 that will shutdown Sup1 process. Later, in some of below workers you can shutdown Sup1 by casting :terminate_sup1 message to bootstraper. Also there is a door that allow you to start again Sup1 when another message is sent to bootstrap worker.



        Further more, if you just need to shutdown Sup1, just go with Task. But if you need control, then put it into single worker process that should have control over it, when it is up or down.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 14 '18 at 13:48

























        answered Nov 14 '18 at 13:32









        Milan JaricMilan Jaric

        4,65821831




        4,65821831
































            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53298072%2fhow-to-trigger-elixir-supervisor-tree-termination-from-a-supervised-worker-proce%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Florida Star v. B. J. F.

            Danny Elfman

            Lugert, Oklahoma