On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> wrote: > Then systemd may use it as PID 1, but if someother wants to use it in own > project, can use it as well. I consider cgroups as part of the kernel API and > I highly dislike the battle on which of the available solutions will get > control over it. Actually I still think the API is broke if it cannot allow > for mutiple processes accessing it. I don´t know an easy way to fix it, but I > think such a kind of API as kernel interface… anyone can read a file, mount a > filesystem, open a network socket, set a nice value depending on permissions > but when it comes to control groups it is down to "one to rule them all". I > can´t help it, but this just seems utterly broke to me. > > I can´t help it but I don´t consider this to be a sane operating system API.
Note that the maintainers of the kernel-side cgroup API (primarily Tejun Heo, AFAIK) consider the current interface insane. In the future, the kernel will expect a single userspace process to control a single hierarchy. Systemd has already been adapted to provide this schema using the current API. See http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011521.html . _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
