On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:50:57PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:36:30AM +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote: > > Progress? For my efforts upstream, I got the comment: > > > > > Sorry, but systemd implements a single-writer cgroup logic (as > > > requested by the kernel maintainers), and hence takes possesion of the > > > whole tree. ... > > > > I observe it only uses the /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd tree. > > (I wonder about the "req by kernel" comment.) > > See the end of the email.
Also: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cgroups/6638 > > > > > > ... If you want your own cgroup tree to manage, use the "Delegate=yes" > > > feature in a service or scope, but otherwise systemd is in exclusive > > > control. > > > > Do we have that? Can we have it everywhere? Can we have it by default, > > should not it be so? > > No. You set Delegate=yes for the unit which manages its own cgroups > hierarchy beneath the one designated by systemd. This is also only a mid-term workaround, and will be dropped longer term, AFAICT from: https://lwn.net/Articles/556112/ Because the kernel maintainer *really* wants a single writer. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette". - If you don't I might ignore you.
