Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:26:43PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 18:19 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: 
> > Dne 23.2.2012 15:13, Peter Zijlstra napsal:
> > > My utter disregard for cgroups comes from having to actually implement a
> > > controller for them, its a frigging nightmare. The systemd retards
> > > mandating all this nonsense for booting a machine is completely bonghit
> > > inspired and hasn't made me feel any better about it.
> > 
> > systemd requires only CONFIG_CGROUPS=y. It does not need any controllers.
> > 
> > The insults are entirely unnecessary.
> 
> At the risk of insulting any systemd person, I recently upgraded my box,
> and had my very first encounter with systemd.  It didn't go well at all,
> to say the very least.  In fact, it quickly became a violent removal.
> 
> After the fact, when I queried, I was told straight out that I should
> live in harmony with the cgroups configuration systemd set up for me and
> be happy.  For the nonce, you can remove it, and here's how (thanks for
> that guys), but that removal option is _going_ to go away.  No, you
> can't simply turn our cgroup setup off and control your box as if you
> actually _own_ the thing, because cgroups is an integral part of the
> systemd concept.
> 
> Really.  I hope that was idiotic fanboy tripe, because that flat ain't
> gonna happen here, ever.
> 
> Q: you say systemd requires CONFIG_CGROUPS=y.  Why is that?  It's taking
> over sysvinits job afaiui, what does that have to do with cgroups?

I think they were using it to track all the children forked by a service
and cleanup all of them if need be. So they just need it for logical
grouping functionality and don't require any controllers as such.

Thanks
Vivek