On 05/11/2010 01:09 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:49:46PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:37:56 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 05:25:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Is it really a good idea to have init depend on such an option?
(It's also disabled in all defconfigs.)
Here's what I heard from Kay Sievers:
Apr 30 16:13:27<juliank> kay: Is there a way to get it working without
this option?
Apr 30 16:13:58<kay> no, no chance
Apr 30 16:14:18<kay> it's one of the building blocks to track/babysit
processes
Apr 30 16:17:24<kay> it will not be "debug" some day, but always required,
yes
Apr 30 16:17:57<kay> there is otherwise no way to reliably kill a service, you need a
simple "container" to kill
Apr 30 16:18:17<kay> otherwise processes can fork faster than you can kill
them
Apr 30 16:18:38<kay> cgroups provide a race free way to kill an entire group
of processes
Apr 30 16:19:13<kay> and they can also tell you that all processes of a service
died -> empty group
Apr 30 16:20:30<juliank> kay: Does CONFIG_CGROUP_DEBUG have any impact
on performance?
Apr 30 16:20:48<kay> it should not be noticeable
Apr 30 16:21:03<kay> only if you actually use them, and even then they are
very cheap
Apr 30 16:21:20<kay> it's not much more than a tag sticked to a process
Apr 30 16:21:38<kay> and a way to handle the tagged things then ...
This does mean that when you use something like screen, the tty it was
connected to is from then on unusable, right? As the cgroup that
contains the screen process also contains the getty and it doesn't kill
one without the other as that is in no way reliable :-)
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4be98226.7090...@debian.org
