[systemd-devel] /dev/log tends to block on socket based activation ...

2014-08-06 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Good morning everyone, I'm playing around a bit with systemd's socket based activation of systemd-journald. My intention is to shift back in time the actual startup of systemd-journald.service to save resources (CPU) for early applications during startup. The respective socket is activated as

Re: [systemd-devel] Has systemd booted up command

2013-07-18 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: systemd-devel-bounces+mhoyer=de.adit-jv@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:systemd-devel-bounces+mhoyer=de.adit-jv@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Umut Tezduyar Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:38 PM To: Lennart Poettering Cc: Mailing-List systemd

[systemd-devel] Impact when not loading ipv6 and autofs kernel module ...

2013-08-07 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello systemd developers, I found that systemd automatically tries to load ipv6 and autofs kernel modules, when they are not compiled in. Could you give me a hint what is not working, when they are neither provided as kernel modules nor compiled in? In case of autofs I found that automount

Re: [systemd-devel] How to delete device units presented in systemd-analyze plot.

2013-08-07 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi Tony, best to my experiences, I doubt that suppressing the loading of device units will speed up systemd that much. There are other major parts that far more significantly delay the startup (cgroups in some cases, loading the unit set at startup, executing the generators, and finally

Re: [systemd-devel] Impact when not loading ipv6 and autofs kernel module ...

2013-08-14 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:49 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Impact when not loading ipv6 and autofs kernel module ... On Wed

Re: [systemd-devel] Need advice on daemon's architecture

2013-11-03 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:systemd-devel- boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Colin Guthrie Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:54 PM To: Peter Lemenkov; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Need

Re: [systemd-devel] Need advice on daemon's architecture

2013-11-03 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
on daemon's architecture El 03/11/13 10:42, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) escribió: Isn't the classical Linux way an option to? - the daemon does its initialization with the calling thread - once it is done with the initialization, it forks off a process that goes on with the daemons work (the main

Re: [systemd-devel] Need advice on daemon's architecture

2013-11-04 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:42 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: Colin Guthrie; Peter Lemenkov; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Need advice on daemon's architecture

Re: [systemd-devel] Question regarding the NotifyAccess parameter

2013-11-26 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
One more issue I observed is - if I specify Restart=on-failure, if watchdog timer expire, it restart the service. But I can see that it create two processes rather than restarting the process. But if I do systemctl restart Myservice , it kills the previous instance of service and

[systemd-devel] Dynamic priorities for service loading using systemd ...

2012-09-21 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi all, hope that is the right forum to raise my question. I'm trying to realize a kind of dynamic mandatory / lazy service scenario using systemd. This means in details that services are either mandatory or lazy. Mandatory services are started first, once all man. services have been loaded,

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] service: kill processes with SIGKILL on watchdog failure

2013-05-24 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Just calling service_enter_dead() does not kill any processes. As a result, the old process may still be running when the new one is started. Thx for the fast response and alternative patch. I tested it in my environment as well and it works as expected killing the processes without

[systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?

2014-09-18 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello together, I recently stumbled over cdrom_id opening the device with the O_EXCL flag set, if it is not currently mounted: fd = open(node, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|(is_mounted(node) ? 0 : O_EXCL)); The effect of this is that automatically mounting a cdrom sometimes results in resource busy, if

Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?

2014-09-18 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:22 AM To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why? Hello together, I recently stumbled over cdrom_id opening the device with the O_EXCL flag set

Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?

2014-09-18 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: David Herrmann [mailto:dh.herrm...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:31 AM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why? Hi On Thu, Sep 18, 2014

Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?

2014-09-18 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: David Herrmann [mailto:dh.herrm...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:57 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Harald Hoyer; Kay Sievers Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why? Hi

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-20 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi, -Original Message- From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel- boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Umut Tezduyar Lindskog Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:55 PM To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading Hi, Is there

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-21 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:11 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading On Sat, Dec 20, 2014

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-21 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog [mailto:u...@tezduyar.com] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:45 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading Hi Marko, Thank you very much for your

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-21 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel- boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Tom Gundersen Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:57 PM To: Umut Tezduyar Cc: systemd Mailing List Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading On 16 Dec 2014

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-21 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Ivan Shapovalov [mailto:intelfx...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 3:26 PM To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2); Umut Tezduyar Lindskog Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading On Sunday, December 21

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-23 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
at certain points. I added some questions inline as well. -Original Message- From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:47 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading

2014-12-23 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Lucas De Marchi [mailto:lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:00 PM To: Lennart Poettering Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2); systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading On Mon, Dec 22, 2014

Re: [systemd-devel] Support for staged startup

2015-02-02 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello, thx for the answer. If you do not use --no-block to start your second target, first target will never finish. That's something I cannot confirm. If you define the service, which is calling systemctl start xxx, as oneshot the service will be in state activating for exactly the time

Re: [systemd-devel] Support for staged startup

2015-02-02 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello, thx for the answer. Why not start the final sub-tree units the conventional way, but make them all wait, listening on sockets?A final service need not contain a 'systemctl start xxx.target' command, as instead it could simply write a message to those sockets. Some services could

[systemd-devel] Support for staged startup

2015-01-29 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi all, I'd like to realize a staged startup with systemd which is mainly about: - starting up a static tree up to a final service - the only job of the final service is to kick off the start of an additional sub tree of units This kind of startup could be realized simply by adding an

Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdog feature in state ACTIVATING ?

2015-03-02 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi Umut, thx for answering -Original Message- From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog [mailto:u...@tezduyar.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:51 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdog feature in state ACTIVATING

[systemd-devel] Service watchdog feature in state ACTIVATING ?

2015-03-01 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi, I ran into a use case where the activation phase of a service takes significantly longer than the desired watchdog period (Activating: 10-20secs, Watchdog: 1-5secs). I found out that the watchdog features starts not before the service is in state START_POST. This means for my use case

Re: [systemd-devel] Support for staged startup

2015-01-29 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi Alison, -Original Message- From: Alison Chaiken [mailto:ali...@she-devel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:17 PM To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Subject: Re: Support for staged startup Marko Hoyer asks: I'd like to realize a staged

Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdog feature in state ACTIVATING ?

2015-04-22 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
-Original Message- From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:00 PM To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdog feature in state ACTIVATING

Re: [systemd-devel] Reduce unit-loading time

2015-05-13 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi, -Original Message- From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel- boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of cee1 Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:52 AM To: systemd Mailing List Subject: [systemd-devel] Reduce unit-loading time Hi all, We're trying systemd to boot up an ARM

[systemd-devel] Reason for setting runqueue to IDLE priority and side effects if this is changed?

2015-07-15 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi all, jumping from systemd 206 to systemd 211 we were faced with some issue, which are finally caused by a changed main loop priority of the job execution. Our use case is the following one: -- While we are starting up the system, a so called application

Re: [systemd-devel] Reason for setting runqueue to IDLE priority and side effects if this is changed?

2015-07-17 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Up to v206, the behavior of systemd was the following one: -- - the starter sends out a start request of a bench of applications (he requests a sequence of unit starts) If you want to control order of execution yourself, why do

[systemd-devel] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason?

2016-06-24 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi, I'm not an expert on Linux access right management but I'm wondering why systemd's private socket (/run/systemd/private) has the x bits set. Did it happen accidently? Can someone explain? Best regards Marko Hoyer Advanced Driver Information Technology GmbH Software Group II (ADITG/SW2)

[systemd-devel] Call for a small extension - Passing the startup timeout to the processes as environment variable

2016-04-13 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hi Hi, I'm interested in a small extension around systemd passing a set of environment variables to processes executed (mainly what is happening in: build_environment(); execute.c) What are we planning to do: - We are planning to have some functionality linked against applications

Re: [systemd-devel] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason?

2016-06-27 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
ag, 24. Juni 2016 18:31 To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd Mailing List Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason? On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) <mho...@de.adit-jv.com<mailto:mho...@de.adit-jv.com>> wrote: Hi,

[systemd-devel] Any reason why /run and /dev/shm do not have MS_NOEXEC flags set?

2017-02-01 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello, a tiny question: - Is there any reason why the mount points /run and /dev/shm do not have MS_NOEXEC flags set? We like to remove execution capabilities from all volatile areas that are writeable to users for security reasons. Best regards Marko Hoyer

Re: [systemd-devel] Any reason why /run and /dev/shm do not have MS_NOEXEC flags set?

2017-02-01 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
, Marko (ADITG/SW2): > a tiny question: > > - Is there any reason why the mount points /run and /dev/shm do not > have MS_NOEXEC flags set? > > We like to remove execution capabilities from all volatile areas that > are writeable to users for security reasons it's all not

[systemd-devel] Single Start-job remains listed after startup in state waiting ...

2016-10-28 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Hello, we are observing a weird behavior with systemd 211. The issue: -After the startup is finished (multi-user.target is reached), one single job (typ: start, unit: service) remains in the job queue in state waiting o There seems not to be any unmet dependency o There are no

Re: [systemd-devel] Single Start-job remains listed after startup in state waiting ...

2016-11-04 Thread Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
to find the fix you are mentioning. Best regards Marko Hoyer Software Group II (ADITG/SW2) Tel. +49 5121 49 6948 -Original Message- From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2016 20:44 To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) Cc: systemd Mailing List Su