On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Kai Krakow <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:26:16 -0700 > schrieb Jorge Almeida <[email protected]>: >
> Well, it says "should be" enabled. It's not a requirement. You may not > use some of htop's features like proper process grouping. Yes, and the emerge finished withou error. But the language of the warning suggests that nasty things would happen to such people as would fail to comply. > > > I would be interested in why you wouldn't want to use cgroups. cgroups is NOT a pet hate of mine. I'll enable it if there is a good reason. But I dislike enabling stuff when I don't understand the need (and words like "correct" and "should" don't really help, and make me think of FUD). Besides > being a requirement for systemd, it also has very valid use cases for This is the well-known reason to enable cgroups. I don't use systemd. > other software you probably use: > > It allows portage to properly shut down remaining processes from ebuild > build phases by knowing exactly which processes have been spawn in the > compile phase, and it allows openrc to better manage the processes and > proper shut down any processes belonging to a service. I understand that, in principle. In practice, sshd works fine without it, for example. And portage doesn't have a cgroups related USE variable. Doesn't mean I won't find a need for it, someday. > > Also you may benefit from setting resource limits and fair resource > sharing for a group of processes where ulimit applies only to single > processes and doesn't know about resource shares at all. > > Overall, it makes sense to have it. It makes sense that the kernel has it. Should it be enabled? For a server, probably. For a single-user workstation? Maybe. I just think this kind of stuff shouldn't be pushed unless really necessary, in which case the Gentoo handbook probably would say so. (Your mail contributes to clarify the reasons why one might want to use it.) Regards Jorge
