On 29 May 2015 at 11:25, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 29.05.15 00:24, Dimitri John Ledkov ([email protected]) > wrote: > >> On 28 May 2015 at 18:08, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 28.05.15 16:42, Dimitri John Ledkov ([email protected]) >> > wrote: >> > >> >> It appears in /proc/self/cgroup as `0::/' >> > >> > What precisely does this fix? >> > >> > I mean, we need to do some major rework of things before the unified >> > hierarchy is really supported in systemd, and this one thing won't >> > really get us too much in this regard, does it? >> > >> >> I'm starting to explore possibilities to start work towards supporting >> unified cgroups hierarchy, or at least be able to boot with it. I'll >> send a larger patch series in one go later than with all the bits that >> offer something more tangible, albeit disabled by default behind >> configure options (like kdbus) given that unified hierarchy is still >> marked experimental in the kernel. > > Ah, it's actually my big thing to work on for the next weeks too...
My current priority is to port at least enough bits to get usable /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd on top of unified cgroups, with immediate benefit of dropping systemd-cgroups-agent and getting release notifications in containers. Not sure about transition / re-exec plan, at the moment I am assuming either/or situation but I guess we'd need to support a dual case, where upon re-exec we might still be in name=systemd rather than in the unified structure. -- Regards, Dimitri. Pura Vida! https://clearlinux.org Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
