[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

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-30 21:01    [W:0.131 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site