On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Le quartidi 24 germinal, an CCXXV, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit : >> Nicolas George: >> > The process with PID one is the only immortal process on the system, and >> > adopts all orphan processes. > >> Wrong. Indeed, it was the systemd people who drove the making it wrong. > > I have no idea what that sentence means. > >> * https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132 > > Summary: Linux has a new system call to allow process to register as > adopters for orphan processes.
Ick. I hope they don't register directly with pid1. > Ok, Linux has a new mutant power that I did not know about, and half my > sentence was wrong. > > Yet, PID 1 is still the only immortal process, unless you have another > new mutant power to produce, and that property is needed to have a > reliable monitoring system. Otherwise, the monitoring process could be > killed, and nobody would notice. Or you could have pid1 monitor only the monitoring process, to keep pid1 simple. > So I stand by my claim: monitoring systems must be anchored at PID 1, > and that makes monitoring part of init's job. Conflicting requirements generally indicates a refactoring is necessary. Of course, it's possible to refactor things incorrectly. > (Immortal, in this context, does not mean that it cannot die: of course, > it can die, but if it does, the kernel panics and the hardware watchdog > reboots it. And of course, it means it cannot be killed by things like > the OOM killer.) pid1 seems to be doing a lot of other things in systemd. Is it cooperatively multitasking with itself yet? Or have they borrowed threads to define a new kind of process concept, so that pid1 can multitask with itself preemptively? I should go look at the source to see, I suppose, if I could only find the time. I assume they will eventually recognize that pid1 is doing too much and start pushing some of the conceptual changes outside pid1. I, of course, being superhuman, if I could find someone to fund my efforts, could solve all these problems without mistake. ;-> Yeah. Still it can be painful to watch them make the mistakes they are making. I would want them to be trying different solutions. But if I back-seat drive over in the Fedora tech lists, it will be distracting to them, so I back-seat drive over here. And try not to get into too much of a panic, since that doesn't seem to help. (If I could find someone to fund my efforts, I would sure like to try to develop an alternative. Sometimes life is not fair. :-/ ) -- Joel Rees I'm imagining I'm a novelist: http://joel-rees-economics.blogspot.com/2017/01/soc500-00-00-toc.html More of my delusions: http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
