On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 08:36:43PM -0700, Dhaval Giani wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.gi...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Lennart just informed me that systemd can now handle mounting >> >> different hierarchies as required by the user (as opposed to a >> >> preconfigured systemd default). With this in mind, I propose to make >> >> cgconfig a lot simpler. Once an official release of systemd is tagged, >> >> we are going to go forward and make cgconfig only handle namespaces >> >> and pre-created groups. At some point the future we should also figure >> >> out how to deprecate cgrulesengd and then we are just remaining with >> >> the core of the library which is soon going to go through a complete >> >> rewrite. >> >> >> > >> > What about non-systemd users? I use upstart from time to time. Can you >> > also elaborate what simpler means? >> > >> >> cgconfig is not to be used to mount cgroup hierarchies. > > If cgconfig is not to be used for mounting cgroup hierarchies then why > did lennart change systemd to accomodate cgconfig specified configuration? > >> My plan is not >> to do further development of cgconfig except for bugfixes, and in >> general redirect everyone to systemd. At some point in time I would >> also like to remove the mount section of cgconfig.conf. I am looking >> to move to systemd since cgconfig mounting cgroups does not gain any >> advantage. OTOH systemd is in a better position to make decisions on >> where tasks are to go, so I would expect that it is the right place to >> a. mount cgroups >> b. do task classification. > > What about resource allocation to groups. Is lennart willing to provide > cgconfig equivalent interfaces to preconfigure resources allocated > to cgroups. >
No, cgconfig will still handle that. > I just want to make sure that lennart is in sync and agrees with taking > over the functionality provided by libcgroup. Last time I talked to > him, he was of the opinion that I just want to pick some sane defaults > for systemd and let libcgroup still do its work and he did not propose > to take over resource allocation and task classification functionality > of libcgroup. > task classification imo belongs with systemd because systemd can control it all in a way more secure fashion. Whether systemd wants to hand over the decision making to someone else is a different issue, but imo it has to come through systemd. > BTW, with cgconfig and task classification out of libcgroup what's left > in libcgroup? Primarily abstraction provided for various controllers so > that user does not have to be aware of absolute paths? And there are > some command line tools. See the other note on my plans going ahead. Dhaval ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 _______________________________________________ Libcg-devel mailing list Libcg-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libcg-devel
