From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennart Poettering Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] systemd kills mdmon if it was started manually by user Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20111102152913.GG5119@tango.0pointer.de> References: <20110208172822.GC21847@tango.0pointer.de> <20111031110613.GA1402@tango.0pointer.de> <20111102114416.7879b77f@notabene.brown> <20111102011615.GA5289@tango.0pointer.de> <20111102130334.09c3ab51@notabene.brown> <20111102133223.GC5119@tango.0pointer.de> <20111102151749.GE5119@tango.0pointer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kay Sievers Cc: NeilBrown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Dan Williams , Andrey Borzenkov , systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, 02.11.11 16:21, Kay Sievers (kay.sievers@vrfy.org) wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 16:17, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Kernel threads we detect by checking whether /proc/$PID/cmdline is > > empty, hence I'd suggest we use the first char of argv[0][0] here, to > > detect whether something is a process to avoid killing. Question is > > which char to choose for that. I am tempted to use '@'. > > Maybe introduce a 'initramfs' cgroup and move the pids there? Well, in which hierarchy? I am a bit concerned about having other subsystems muck with the systemd cgroup hierarchy, before systemd has set it up. I can see some elegance in having all code from the initrd that remains running during boot in a cgroup of its own, but that's probably orthogonal to finding a way to recognize processes not to kill at shutdown. Why? Because there's stuff like Plymouth which also stays around from the initramfs, but actually is something we *do* want to kill on shutdown. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.