2

In a typical modern Linux distribution, the user may experience this when trying to shut down the computer:

"A stop job is running for Session c2 of user", or equivalent.

Now, I understand the idea behind this: The OS sends SIGTERM, I suppose, to the program, and it doesn't terminate. Why send it SIGKILL, when you can wait and see if the program manages to clean up after itself and stop gracefully? This is safer, less of a chance that data is lost, and work is lost.

However, why is there NO WAY to just stop this?

A stop job is running for Session c2 of user

Yeah, sure, you can change some timeouts, shutdown in a different way, maybe there are some other tricks.

My question is: Why isn't there a simple key combination you can punch in, if you as a user want to override this? Why can't I simply do control + D, or control + C to cancel it and just send SIGKILL immediately?

I hope there is some logical reasoning behind this design choice, because to me, it seems awfully similar to how e.g. Windows deals with a process that isn't "responding" and seems very inspired from that.

-1

There is a hardware solution for this. If you really don't want to wait to allow the system to try to shutdown gracefully, you can always hold he power button down for a few seconds. I've done this a few times when the timeout just gets longer and longer.

  • This is not an answer. It's just a crude hack work-around to get your computer to shutdown when you encounter this type of systemd hang, which is itself the result of bad design and implementation. The question is if there is a way to resolve this problem in a clean way that is not a crude hardware shutdown. – Lizardx Apr 1 at 18:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.