From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: legacy mode Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:23:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20150827212326.GA5019@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20150827202137.GA4221@mail.hallyn.com> <20150827202722.GH26785@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150827204500.GA4447@mail.hallyn.com> <20150827204825.GI26785@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150827204825.GI26785-qYNAdHglDFBN0TnZuCh8vA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:48:25PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Serge. > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 03:45:00PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > If the legacy userspace doesn't do any resource control, the leaf rule > > > restriction doesn't apply anyway, so nothing to worry about. > > > > My main use case is nested lxc, presumably with systemd inside some of > > the nested containers, so this would definately be an issue. > > W/o controllers in the nested environment, it should be fine. W/ > controllers, I don't think this is going to fly. I don't think trying > to bridge the two versions is a healthy direction in the long term. That's unfortunate as it suggests that lxcfs is the only way around this problem :(