On 03/03/2014 11:43 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 03.03.14 11:52, WaLyong Cho (walyong....@samsung.com) wrote: > >>> But if you do this on an embedded system you can do >>> DefaultDependencies=no for all services where you want this and place >>> them manually? >>> >> Almost I can. Actually I can request to the package manager in our >> system. But, I don't want to put DefaultDependencies=no to all of >> services. Then all of services should consider which mount, socket, path >> and more units are needed to launch itself. I don't want this. I just >> wants they launch after basic.target and some of special services what >> should be per-processed before than others to optimize boot speed >> extremely. (Those pre-processed services will be listed in config with >> DefaultExtraDependencies=) >>> >>> Also, are you sure that you really want to solve this with manual deps? >>> I mean, the kernel already has a CPU scheduler and an IO >>> scheduler. Maybe it would be better to simply dump all the scheduling >>> work on the kernel as far as that is possible, start everything in >>> parallel, but then also tell the kernel what matters more, and what >>> matters less. >>> >>> We already expose CPUShares= and BlockIOWeight= for services. Maybe we >>> should duplicate these as StartupCPUShares= and StartupBlockIOWeight= >>> which could set different values to apply only while the boot process is >>> not complete yet. Or something like that. >>> >>> Lennart >>> >> Parallel is good and by this, systemd is very flexible to suit our >> product. But I(our product) want to some of services occupy most of >> system resources at the head of boot sequence. (don't confuse that will >> after basic.target) Some more detail, we play some of animation during >> boot and we call that boot-animation(similar with splash animation). >> During that time, we launch essential services and idle screen with this >> functionality. At this time, we don't want any other services are using >> system resources. >> >> StartupCPUShares= and StartupBlockIOWeight= maybe good idea. But should >> be considered it really OK, lower or higher CPUShares and BlockIOWeight >> during whole boot time. > > Yes, precisely, that is what I want StartupCPUShares= to be: an > alternative to CPUShares= that is applied only while the system is > booting up. > > A service with this configuration: > > CPUShares=1024 > StartupCPUShares=10 > > Would be scheduled at a very low priority during startup, but as soon as > startup is complete would be bumped to normal levels. > > Lennart >
I sent new patch with new subject "core: add startup resource control option". Thank you, WaLyong _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
