From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Serge Hallyn Subject: Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:36:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20130628193608.GA10415@sergelap> References: <20130422214159.GG12543@htj.dyndns.org> <20130625000118.GT1918@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130626212047.GB4536@htj.dyndns.org> <1372311907.5871.78.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130627180143.GD5599@mtj.dyndns.org> <51CDE18E.8080009@amacapital.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51CDE18E.8080009-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Tejun Heo , thockin-Rl2oBbRerpQdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Mike Galbraith , Linux Kernel Mailing List , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Kay Sievers , lpoetter , workman-devel , jpoimboe , "dhaval.giani" , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org): > 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 Neat. I like that proposal. > I've already sent a patch to make /proc//task//children > available regardless of configuration. -serge