On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Andy. > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> I guess what I'm trying to say here is that many systems will rather >> fundamentally use systemd. Admins of those systems should still have >> access to a reasonably large subset of cgroup functionality. If the >> single-hierarchy model is going to prevent going around systemd and if >> systemd isn't going to expose all of the useful cgroup functionality, >> then perhaps there should be a way to separate systemd's hierarchy >> from the cgroup hierarchy. > > I don't think systemd will prevent you from buildling your own > hierarchy on the side. It sure won't be properly supported and things > might break in corener cases / over time but if you're willing to take > such risks anyway... In the long term tho, what should happen > probably is examining use cases like yours and then incorporating > sensible mechanisms to support that into the base system > infrastructure. It might not be completely identical but I'm sure > over time we'll be able to find what are the fundamental pieces and > proper abstractions. Right now, we're exposing way too much without > even clearly understanding what are being enabled. It is > unsustainable.
Now I'm confused. I thought that support for multiple hierarchies was going away. Is it here to stay after all? --Andy _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
