Am Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:26:16 -0700 schrieb Jorge Almeida <jjalme...@gmail.com>:
> Why? > > emerging htop yields this message: > * CONFIG_CGROUPS: is not set when it should be. > * Please check to make sure these options are set correctly. > * Failure to do so may cause unexpected problems. > > > Gee, I can use top without cgroups support. I thought I might use htop > as well. Anyone knows why I _should_ use a kernel with cgroups > support? Just curious, not a big deal. I can do without htop if I > must. Well, it says "should be" enabled. It's not a requirement. You may not use some of htop's features like proper process grouping. > (I'm not suggesting that cgroups doesn't have valid use cases. But a > graphic version of top? Really? Please help me to understand. I want > to do the _correct_ thing, and I wouldn't want my dog to die for lack > of cgroups support.) I would be interested in why you wouldn't want to use cgroups. Besides being a requirement for systemd, it also has very valid use cases for other software you probably use: It allows portage to properly shut down remaining processes from ebuild build phases by knowing exactly which processes have been spawn in the compile phase, and it allows openrc to better manage the processes and proper shut down any processes belonging to a service. Also you may benefit from setting resource limits and fair resource sharing for a group of processes where ulimit applies only to single processes and doesn't know about resource shares at all. Overall, it makes sense to have it. -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred.
