[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Workman-devel] cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
    On Fri 28-06-13 14:01:55, Vivek Goyal wrote:
    > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:05:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > > OK, so libcgroup's rules daemon will still work and place my tasks in
    > > appropriate cgroups?
    > Do you use that daemon in practice?

    I am not but my users do. And that is why I care.

    > For user session logins, I think systemd has plans to put user
    > sessions in a cgroup (kind of making pam_cgroup redundant).
    > Other functionality rulesengined was providing moving tasks automatically
    > in a cgroup based on executable name. I think that was racy and not
    > many people had liked it.

    It doesn't make sense for short lived processes, all right, but it can
    be useful for those that live for a long time.

    > IIUC, systemd can't disable access to cgroupfs from other utilities.

    The previous messages read otherwise. And that is why this rised the red
    flag at many fronts.

    > So most likely rulesengined should contine to work. But having both
    > systemd and libcgroup might not make much sense though.
    > Thanks
    > Vivek

    Michal Hocko
    SUSE Labs

     \ /
      Last update: 2013-06-30 21:01    [W:0.024 / U:8.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site