[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160721150401.GE22680@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:04:01 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <cbrauner@...e.de>, dev@...ncontainers.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] cgroup: relax common ancestor restriction for
direct descendants
Hello, Aleksa.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 01:07:13AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > Coordinate in userspace. Request whatever is managing the cgroup
> > hierarchy to set up delegation. It's not like permission model is
> > fully contained in kernel on modern systems anyway.
>
> My experience with certain systemdaemons' cgroup handling doesn't inspire
> confidence :/ (from the runC side, we've had nothing but issues). Also, how
Fix it then. Working around bugs in userland isn't a justifiable
rationale for adding new kernel features.
> do you even boot into a cgroupv2 system with systemd (I started backporting
> patches to openSUSE, but it's still not booting)?
With devel branch, just passing in the unified hierarchy boot param
seems to work fine here.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists