On 8/2/2019 3:12 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
On 02/08/2019 17:23, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
On 02/08/2019 04:54, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
However, I had a bit of fun and games getting mountcgroupfs to
I'd got CONFIG_CGROUPS CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER and CONFIG_FHANDLE
[...]
CONFIG_MEMCFG=Y
CONFIG_CGROUP_RDMA=Y
CONFIG_CGROUP_DEVICE=y
Rebooted, and that was good enough. The question is, do I actually
_need_ all of these ?
From my investigations, no... And the whole mountcgroupfs bootscript can be
omitted, because elogind takes care of mounting those. OTOH, my investigations
are limited to using startx with the default xinit clients...
I mentioned this error (with less details) in the "xorg failure" thread. If no
CONFIG_CGROUP_XXX is selected, the command for mounting the v1 cgroup fs
returns an error, and the command for creating the "unified" dir fails too,
because the fs is not mounted. Actually, from man cgroups(7), it is said that:
"Note that on many systems, the v1 controllers are automatically mounted
under /sys/fs/cgroup; in particular, systemd(1) automatically creates
such mount points."
Now, the question is whether elogind does those mounts too. But one thing is
sure: without the mountcgroupfs script, whether or not some CONFIG_CGROUP_XXX
is defined, Xorg runs.
Pierre
Hmm, I thought it was all getting clearer, and that when I could
find time to rebuild the kernel a few times I would find out how
many of those are necessary. But running a DM is not something I've
done for ages (although I recall that sddm shutdowns were always
messy because the messages were on a different tty).
I guess I might as well check which options are necessary for the
mountcgroupfs script.
I think we'd better check whether mountcgroupfs is needed at all. elogind
seems to do most of what is in this script.
Had time to look at this tonight. Suppose v1 cgroups will work alone (I
was not aware that they were mounted automatically - haven't actually
verified this yet, but will take your word for it). This was not the
case at 238 at least. First question when asking for help was whether
cgroups were mounted correctly, following a couple of examples to test
that. Unfortunately, the only thing I see in the changes lists is from
235: "Starting elogind will no longer crash if the underlying system
uses legacy or hybrid cgroups." -- which was after I started testing
with it. I ensured that both are mounted correctly. Technically, even
the elogind script isn't necessary anymore if PAM files are setup
correctly, a user login will trigger elogind to start, but obviously,
login will take a few cycles longer. I elected to keep it at that time.
--DJ
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
