Re: [systemd-devel] running systemd in a cgroup: future compatibility

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > That all said, I think we should really try to make systemd work with > your usecase directly and natively, i.e. add enough flexibility to > systemd so that you don't have to wrap it in such a "foreign" prefix

Re: [systemd-devel] running systemd in a cgroup: future compatibility

On Di, 13.02.18 17:06, Josh Snyder (jo...@netflix.com) wrote: > I've tested against both legacy and unified cgroup hierarchies. The > functionality to detect the current cgroups and nest processes underneath them > appears to be in manager_setup_cgroup (src/core/cgroup.c:2033). My question > for

Re: [systemd-devel] running systemd in a cgroup: future compatibility

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Josh Snyder wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on a use-case where I want to impose memory limits on the > system in > aggregate, with one process (e.g. memcached) opted-out of the limit. With a > typical distribution's setup (Ubuntu, in my

[systemd-devel] running systemd in a cgroup: future compatibility

Hi all, I'm working on a use-case where I want to impose memory limits on the system in aggregate, with one process (e.g. memcached) opted-out of the limit. With a typical distribution's setup (Ubuntu, in my case), I would be able to impose a memory limit on each systemd slice (viz. user,