On Mon, 24.06.13 16:01, Andy Lutomirski (l...@amacapital.net) wrote: > AFAICT the main reason that systemd uses cgroup is to efficiently > track which service various processes came from and to send signals, > and it seems like that use case could be handled without cgroups at > all by creative use of subreapers and a syscall to broadcast a signal > to everything that has a given subreaper as an ancestor. In that > case, systemd could be asked to stay away from cgroups even in the > single-hierarchy case.
systemd uses cgroups to manage services. Managing services means many things. Among them: keeping track of processes, listing processes of a service, killing processes of a service, doing per-service logging (which means reliably, immediately, and race-freely tracing back messages to the service which logged them), about 55 other things, and also resource management. I don't see how I can do anything of this without something like cgroups, i.e. hierarchial, resource management involved systemd which allows me to securely put labels on processes. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
