lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
On 06/27/2013 11:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> AFAICS, having a userland agent which has overall knowledge of the
> hierarchy and enforcesf structure and limiations is a requirement to
> make cgroup generally useable and useful. For systemd based systems,
> systemd serving that role isn't too crazy. It's sure gonna have
> teeting issues at the beginning but it has all the necessary
> information to manage workloads on the system.
>
> A valid issue is interoperability between systemd and non-systemd
> systems. I don't have an immediately good answer for that. I wrote
> in another reply but making cgroup generally available is a pretty new
> effort and we're still in the process of figuring out what the right
> constructs and abstractions are. Hopefully, we'll be able to reach a
> common set of abstractions to base things on top in itme.
>

The systemd stuff will break my code, too (although the single hierarchy
by itself won't, I think). I think that the kernel should make whatever
simple changes are needed so that systemd can function without using
cgroups at all. That way users of a different cgroup scheme can turn
off systemd's.

Here was my proposal, which hasn't gotten a clear reply:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/11424

I've already sent a patch to make /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
available regardless of configuration.

--Andy




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-28 23:01    [W:0.316 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site