On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:53 PM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mi, 16.03.22 17:30, Felip Moll (fe...@schedmd.com) wrote:
>
> > AFAIK RemainAfterExit for services actually does cleanup the cgroup tree
> if
> > there are no more processes in it.
>
> It doesn't do that if delegation is on (iirc, if
On Mi, 16.03.22 17:35, Michal Koutný (mkou...@suse.com) wrote:
> True, in the unified mode it should be safe doing manually.
> I was worried about migrating e.g. MainPID of a service into this scope
> but PID1 should handle that AFAICS. Also since this has to be performed
> by the privileged user
On Mi, 16.03.22 17:30, Felip Moll (fe...@schedmd.com) wrote:
> > > (The above is slightly misleading) there could be an alternative of
> > > something like RemainAfterExit=yes for scopes, i.e. such scopes would
> > > not be stopped after last process exiting (but systemd would still be in
> > >
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 05:06:28PM +0100, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> > That owner would be a process -- bang, you created a service with
> > delegation or a scope with "keepalive" process.
>
> can't parse this.
That was meant as a humorous proof by contradiction that delegation on
slices is
> > (The above is slightly misleading) there could be an alternative of
> > something like RemainAfterExit=yes for scopes, i.e. such scopes would
> > not be stopped after last process exiting (but systemd would still be in
> > charge of cleaning the cgroup after explicit stop request and that'd
>
On Mi, 16.03.22 16:15, Felip Moll (fe...@schedmd.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:24 PM Michal Koutný wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Felip Moll
> > wrote:
> > > Meaning that it would be great to have a delegated cgroup subtree without
> > > the need of a service
On Di, 15.03.22 17:24, Michal Koutný (mkou...@suse.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Felip Moll
> wrote:
> > Meaning that it would be great to have a delegated cgroup subtree without
> > the need of a service or scope.
> > Just an empty subtree.
>
> It looks appealing to
On Di, 15.03.22 16:35, Felip Moll (fe...@schedmd.com) wrote:
> > I don't follow. You can enable delegation on the scope. I mean, that's
> > the reason I suggested to use a scope.
> >
> >
> Meaning that it would be great to have a delegated cgroup subtree without
> the need of a service or scope.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:24 PM Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Felip Moll
> wrote:
> > Meaning that it would be great to have a delegated cgroup subtree without
> > the need of a service or scope.
> > Just an empty subtree.
>
> It looks appealing to add
