Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 06:41:56PM +0100, Oliver Schad wrote: > > The reason I think it's mostly useless is because the only use case > > for cgroup supervision is supervising double-forking daemons, which > > is not a very smart thing to do. A much better approach is to get rid > > of double-forking and then just directly supervise the resulting long > > running process. > > I can't think of any other cases where it would be useful. > > I definitly have to correct you: cgroups are *NOT* designed to catch > wild forking processes. This is just a side-effect ot them.
Er, that whole quoted part, including the last sentence, is about using cgroups to supervise processes. Not about the use of cgroups in general. I can't think of any other use cases where cgroup supervision would be useful, other than for double-forking daemons. Also, wrt process supervision, calling it a side effect is bit misleading. The interfaces are not really made for that kind of use at all. Strictly speaking, anything doing kill `cat .../cgroup.procs` is racy and unreliable. Including that runcg tool that I wrote. In practice, the race is pretty much irrelevant, but it's still there, inherent to the interfaces.
