On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Kok, Auke-jan H
> wrote:
>> Only userspace can distinguish between e.g. a foreground and
>> background application (WM) and decide that CPU consumption of certain
>> apps in the background is excessive, and th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Kok, Auke-jan H
wrote:
> Only userspace can distinguish between e.g. a foreground and
> background application (WM) and decide that CPU consumption of certain
> apps in the background is excessive, and throttle it down further,
This would probably be some bus cal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 21.06.13 14:10, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h@intel.com) wrote:
>
>> > So, in the future, when you have some service, and that service wants to
>> > alter some cgroup resource limits for itself (let's say: set its own cpu
>> >
On Fri, 21.06.13 14:10, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h@intel.com) wrote:
> > So, in the future, when you have some service, and that service wants to
> > alter some cgroup resource limits for itself (let's say: set its own cpu
> > shares value to 1500), this is what should happen: the service sho
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 21.06.13 12:59, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h@intel.com) wrote:
>
>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011388.html
>> >
>> > Here's an update and a bit on the bigger picture:
>>
>> Thanks for doing
On Fri, 21.06.13 12:59, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h@intel.com) wrote:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011388.html
> >
> > Here's an update and a bit on the bigger picture:
>
> Thanks for doing this - I am really looking forward to seeing this all
> take shape
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Heya,
>
> On monday I posted this mail:
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011388.html
>
> Here's an update and a bit on the bigger picture:
Thanks for doing this - I am really looking forward to seeing t
On 06/20/2013 07:24 AM, Belal, Awais wrote:
> Any help here would be highly appreciated.
You may be running into system-systcl's (IMO) counter-intuitive filename
rules. See sysctl.d(5) and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924433.
--
===
Heya,
On monday I posted this mail:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011388.html
Here's an update and a bit on the bigger picture:
Half of what I mentioned there is now in place. There's now a new
"slice" unit type in place in git, and everything is hooked up to
it.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:42:41PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Did you read Lennart's reply?
Only after responding. ;)
> I can also assure you that when there was a bug in this cache window
> code about eight months ago it was quite obvious. This was fixed
> (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/system
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:08:27PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> That said, the current map sizes are nothing we tuned particularly. If
> you can show actal performance benefits I am happy to change them.
Yes, I would be interested in having a performance test for this. Do
you have an idea f
On Fri, 21.06.13 17:43, Holger Hans Peter Freyther (hol...@freyther.de) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:31:13PM +0200, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
>
> > I care about whether or not journald will work reliable on an
> > unattended system. And from what I see there is no limit in the
>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:31:13PM +0200, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> I care about whether or not journald will work reliable on an
> unattended system. And from what I see there is no limit in the
> mmap cache. This means that journald can potentially exhaust the
> virtual address space.
On Fri, 21.06.13 17:31, Holger Hans Peter Freyther (hol...@freyther.de) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:19:30PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why you care what the journald process does with its
> > very own 2+GB of address space, and why it uses 128MB of it.
>
> I care a
'Twas brillig, and Holger Hans Peter Freyther at 21/06/13 16:31 did gyre
and gimble:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:19:30PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> I have no idea why you care what the journald process does with its
>> very own 2+GB of address space, and why it uses 128MB of it.
>
> I care a
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:19:30PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> I have no idea why you care what the journald process does with its
> very own 2+GB of address space, and why it uses 128MB of it.
I care about whether or not journald will work reliable on an
unattended system. And from what I see th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:53:23PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> Fragmentation, allocation? I don't think we talk about the same thing here.
>
> ... you will figure that out.
I doubt it, because there is nothing really allocate
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 03:16:50PM +0200, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:53:23PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > Fragmentation, allocation? I don't think we talk about the same thing here.
>
> ... you will figure that out.
>
> > Mapping an on-disk file "a symptom
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:53:23PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Fragmentation, allocation? I don't think we talk about the same thing here.
... you will figure that out.
> Mapping an on-disk file "a symptom of inefficiency", you might need to
> update your idea of how things work.
I didn't say t
On Fri, 21.06.13 13:42, Holger Hans Peter Freyther (hol...@freyther.de) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:29:56PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > What's the problem with using address *space*? Address space is not
> > used memory, file memory mappings are just how things work in general,
> >
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Łukasz Stelmach
wrote:
> It was <2013-06-20 czw 20:57>, when Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 19.06.13 14:59, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Describe how to handle an AF_UNIX socket, with Accept set to false,
>>> received from systemd,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:29:56PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> What's the problem with using address *space*? Address space is not
>> used memory, file memory mappings are just how things work in general,
>> they are cheap and
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:29:56PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> What's the problem with using address *space*? Address space is not
> used memory, file memory mappings are just how things work in general,
> they are cheap and should not really matter.
It is a symptom of inefficiency. If an applica
Hi Lennart/Andrey,
Your pointers led me to the right direction thanks a lot. I was indeed using an
older version of connman which had a bug that messed this up. It disabled ipv6
functionality as soon as the daemon was kicked and this was happening after my
conf modified the kernel var.
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> I had postponed the adoption of systemd due the excessive CPU usage
> of the journald. I am re-evaluating the situation with version 204
> right now and I noticed that the (virtual) address space is getting
> unusual big.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:45:35AM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> It won't help if the main process is still there and there is no new
> process to kill.
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> The second SIGTERM/SIGKILL is to kill ExecStopPost= if necessary, right? In
> that case, this is a better solution.
Can any
It was <2013-06-20 czw 20:57>, when Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 19.06.13 14:59, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
>
>> Describe how to handle an AF_UNIX socket, with Accept set to false,
>> received from systemd, upon exit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Łukasz Stelmach
>> ---
>> man
27 matches
Mail list logo
