On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:26:43PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:

On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 18:19 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: 

quoted

Dne 23.2.2012 15:13, Peter Zijlstra napsal:

quoted

My utter disregard for cgroups comes from having to actually implement a
controller for them, its a frigging nightmare. The systemd retards
mandating all this nonsense for booting a machine is completely bonghit
inspired and hasn't made me feel any better about it.

systemd requires only CONFIG_CGROUPS=y. It does not need any controllers.

The insults are entirely unnecessary.

At the risk of insulting any systemd person, I recently upgraded my box,
and had my very first encounter with systemd.  It didn't go well at all,
to say the very least.  In fact, it quickly became a violent removal.

After the fact, when I queried, I was told straight out that I should
live in harmony with the cgroups configuration systemd set up for me and
be happy.  For the nonce, you can remove it, and here's how (thanks for
that guys), but that removal option is _going_ to go away.  No, you
can't simply turn our cgroup setup off and control your box as if you
actually _own_ the thing, because cgroups is an integral part of the
systemd concept.

Really.  I hope that was idiotic fanboy tripe, because that flat ain't
gonna happen here, ever.

Q: you say systemd requires CONFIG_CGROUPS=y.  Why is that?  It's taking
over sysvinits job afaiui, what does that have to do with cgroups?

I think they were using it to track all the children forked by a service
and cleanup all of them if need be. So they just need it for logical
grouping functionality and don't require any controllers as such.

Thanks
Vivek