From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:02:13 -0500 Message-ID: <20120301210213.GF13533@redhat.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120222163858.GB4128@redhat.com> <20120222165714.GC4128@redhat.com> <1329990094.24994.64.camel@twins> <1330006399.11248.20.camel@twins> <4F4FAF89.3090706@redhat.com> <1330633603.7414.49.camel@marge.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1330633603.7414.49.camel-YqMYhexLQo31wTEvPJ5Q0F6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Michal Schmidt , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig 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