On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Kai Krakow <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:33:05 -0700 >> schrieb Jorge Almeida <[email protected]>: >> >>> It makes sense that the kernel has it. Should it be enabled? For a >>> server, probably. For a single-user workstation? Maybe. >>
> > Honestly, I can't think of why you wouldn't want to use it. > > The use cases of killing orphan processes and managing resources at a > service level have already been mentioned. I don't usually have orphan processes (that process 1 doesn't reap). My services don't require fine tuning re resources. > > Another use case is that the kernel automatically takes cgroups into > account when scheduling. So, if one of your services launches a bunch > of children they'll be weighted together when allocating CPU. That > means that a service with ten threads won't get 10x the CPU of a > service with one thread if CPU becomes limiting, assuming equal > niceness/etc. On a multi-user system the same would apply to the user > running 100 processes vs 1. > > I also use cgroups to monitor memory use/etc at a service level. I don't have complex services (some might argue that very complex services are badly designed services, but I leave that discussion to pros). I only run single-user workstations. > > Sure, they're somewhat optional, but they're a pretty useful kernel feature. No arguing there. Still, it shouldn't be pushed. It's a bad sign. Jorge
