Hi Serge, On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 04:23:25AM -0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting StefanPotyra (stefan.pot...@informatik.uni-erlangen.de): > > Thanks for looking, Stefan. > > > This looks odd: > > > > +cd /sys/fs/cgroup > > +for d in `/bin/ls`; do > > ________ > > + umount $d || true > > +done > > Thanks for drawing my attention to this. This is indeed a problem. As > an example, I did: > > (as root) mount --bind /dev/pts /mnt > (as serge) (cd /sys/fs/cgroup; ln -s /mnt) > (as root) umount /sys/fs/cgroup/mnt > > and /mnt got umounted.
I didn't think about such a scenario, and believe that that would be the fault of the admin to mount stuff there. > As for the "for d in `/bin/ls`; do" bit, what exactly looks odd about it? I > do > it all the time by hand, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed here... I usually use for i in *; do ;) The case where * doesn't match anything should be covered by || true, right? Anyways, I guess I wasn't clear that this was just a small oddity, not at all a blocker. > I had considered specifying a (configurable) list of cgroups to mount, > and then only umount those. I.e. > > CGROUPS="memory devices cpu freezer" > > at top of the upstart job. Maybe 'all' option which then grabs all from 'cat > /proc/cgroups". Would that be preferable? I like the current simplicity :). However that's up to you, I'd be equally happy with it. > > > Is the following sufficient (no clue really, I've never been too intimate > > with upstart scripts)? > > +start on mounted MOUNTPOINT=/sys > > The cgroups get mounted under /sys/fs/cgroup, and have no userspace > dependencies, so it should be sufficient. Having /proc mounted? (Is it guaranteed to be mounted prior to /sys?) Having /usr mounted in case it is on a different partition? (Or don't we support such a scenario). As I wrote, I don't have too much clue about upstart. > > apart from that, I don't see if any mentioned bugs have been forwarded > > to upstream. Can you shed some light here please? Seeing upstream > > The bug about cgclear failing (so that the job fails to stop, and the > package can't be removed) was mentioned upstream, but I don't believe > they've pushed a patch for it yet. They announced in the last few days > that they expect all functionality to be pulled into systemd, and therefore > will stop developing. Ah, ok. > IMO it's both boot speed and not running extraneous daemons on your > system. Go ahead then, FFe granted. Cheers, Stefan. ** Changed in: libcgroup (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to libcgroup in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/829628 Title: [FFE] Add cgroup-lite package To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libcgroup/+bug/829628/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs