On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> wrote: > OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du mercredi 07 mars 2012, vers 00:21, > Fernando Lemos <fernando...@gmail.com> disait : > >>> To give one particular example: systemd uses Linux-specific features to >>> accurately track all the processes started by a service, which allows >>> accurate monitoring and shutdown of processes which could otherwise >>> disassociate themselves from their parent processes via the usual >>> daemonizing trick. POSIX doesn't provide features that allow this in >>> general, but Linux does. (Quite possibly other OSes provide those >>> features too, but not in a standardized way.) > >> By the way, upstart uses ptrace for this: > >> http://netsplit.com/2007/12/07/how-to-and-why-supervise-forking-processes/ > >> It's an interesting trick, and probably more portable too. > > Maybe we could have an intermediate goal to patch any daemon to add an > option to not fork on start. If any daemon can be started without > forking, it seems easy to start/stop them without cgroups. This would > allow to generate a sysvinit script from systemd service description. I > don't know any daemon that does not have a flag to not fork on > start. The number of daemons to patch may be low. > > This will not be as clean as using cgroups, but it won't be worst than > the actual situation.
I don't quite understand the problem you're trying to solve. Both upstart and systemd already handle cases where the daemon doesn't have the option of not forking. Regards, -- 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/canvyna_yssbdaj7drllntltob5w3sh46k0t1yuk88kepxqn...@mail.gmail.com
