On 01.04.2023 01:12, Dmitri Kourennyi wrote:
The message seems to imply that systemd-networkd depends on
sockets.target, which in turn depends on the tinyssh socket, but that in
turn needs systemd-networkd to run to create the target device. I
Socket units have implicit Before=sockets.target
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-04-01 at 06:16 +1100, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Presumably your system mmaps ELF binaries, VM images, and similar
> > > stuff into memory. if you don't allow anonymous memory to
On Sat, 2023-04-01 at 06:16 +1100, Michael Chapman wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> [...]
> > Presumably your system mmaps ELF binaries, VM images, and similar
> > stuff into memory. if you don't allow anonymous memory to backed out
> > onto swap, then you basically
I have a homebrew router that includes multiple independent network
devices. I manage these devices using systemd-networkd, which ultimately
ends up with a `wan` device, and a `brlan` bridge that covers all the
lan connections (possibly of importance, I use .link files so
systemd-networkd
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[...]
> Presumably your system mmaps ELF binaries, VM images, and similar
> stuff into memory. if you don't allow anonymous memory to backed out
> onto swap, then you basically telling the kernel "please page out
> my program code out instead". Which
Hi Lennart,
Thanks for the reply
I had seen SD_BUS_METHOD function. But my doubt was bit different.
check_access function get the variable v as shown below
/* Then, look for a known method */
vtable_key.path = (char*) p;
vtable_key.interface = m->interface;
On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 12:50 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 30.03.23 13:16, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
>
> >
> > Lennart Poettering writes:
> >
> > > oomd/PSI looks at memory allocation latencies to determine memory
> > > pressure. Since you disallow anonymous memory to
On Fr, 31.03.23 21:54, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> > because otherwise you just remove the latencies from anonymous memory
> > but you amplify the latencies on file-backed memory. Which is overall
> > worse, not better.
>
> The host isn't doing much IO. Just a bit of logging
Hey.
Just for better understanding:
AFAIU, the main idea of having swap despite enough memory was the
following:
Unless when processes explicitly release memory (or get stopped), the
kernel can mostly reclaim only cached memory,... but if swap is
available it can also reclaim anonymous memory.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 31.03.23 07:57, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > [...]
> > > No, it does not make "little difference", there are entire subsystems
> > > which are much worse off, if not
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 31.03.23 18:24, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Barry wrote:
> > [...]
> > > If you want to run in ram only then you must turn off the kernel
> > > overcommit.
> > > Have you done that? If not then
On Do, 30.03.23 13:16, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > oomd/PSI looks at memory allocation latencies to determine memory
> > pressure. Since you disallow anonymous memory to be paged out and thus
> > increase IO on file backed memory you increase the
On Fr, 31.03.23 07:57, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> [...]
> > No, it does not make "little difference", there are entire subsystems
> > which are much worse off, if not completely useless, without swap.
> > Post-cgroupsv2 memory
On Fr, 31.03.23 18:24, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Barry wrote:
> [...]
> > If you want to run in ram only then you must turn off the kernel overcommit.
> > Have you done that? If not then you risk processes getting SEGV signals.
>
> Seriously. It's
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 30.03.23 18:56, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mi, 29.03.23 13:53, Christoph Anton Mitterer (cales...@scientia.org)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > That's a bad
On Do, 30.03.23 18:56, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mi, 29.03.23 13:53, Christoph Anton Mitterer (cales...@scientia.org)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > That's a bad idea btw. I'd advise you not to do that: on modern
> > > > >
On Do, 30.03.23 01:39, Christoph Anton Mitterer (cales...@scientia.org) wrote:
> Well that's clear, it's just that on my systems (both servers and
> workstations) I've never really run into the need to reclaim lots of
> anonymous memory.
It's the Linux kernel that reclaims memory for you. You
On Fr, 31.03.23 05:32, Lal, Arun (arun@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In file systemd\src\libsystemd\sd-bus\bus-objects.c function check_access has
> the following check:
>
> /* If the member is marked UNPRIVILEGED let's grant access */
> if (c->vtable->flags &
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 06:24:09PM +1100, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Barry wrote:
> > [...]
> > > If you want to run in ram only then you must turn off the kernel
> > > overcommit.
> > > Have you done that? If not then you risk
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 06:24:09PM +1100, Michael Chapman wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Barry wrote:
> [...]
> > If you want to run in ram only then you must turn off the kernel overcommit.
> > Have you done that? If not then you risk processes getting SEGV signals.
>
> Seriously. It's almost as
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Barry wrote:
[...]
> If you want to run in ram only then you must turn off the kernel overcommit.
> Have you done that? If not then you risk processes getting SEGV signals.
Seriously. It's almost as if nobody here is actually reading anything of
what I've written!
> On 31 Mar 2023, at 00:51, Michael Chapman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Phillip Susi wrote:
>>
>> Michael Chapman writes:
>>
>>> What specifically is the difference between:
>>>
>>> * swap does not exist at all;
>>> * swap is full of data that will not be swapped in for weeks or
22 matches
Mail list logo
