Re: [systemd-devel] swap on zram service unit, using Conflicts=umount

2019-06-25 Thread Chris Murphy
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:30 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mo, 24.06.19 13:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) > > wrote: > > > > > > So for tmpfs mounts that don't turn off DefaultDependencies=

Re: [systemd-devel] Changes to dependency graph during boot

2019-06-25 Thread Conrad Hoffmann
Thank you for that thorough explanation, much appreciated! Cheers, Conrad On 6/25/19 11:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mo, 24.06.19 16:41, Conrad Hoffmann ([email protected]) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> TL;DR: I was wondering what happens if a unit executed early during the >> boot process cha

Re: [systemd-devel] swap on zram service unit, using Conflicts=umount

2019-06-25 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mo, 24.06.19 13:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > So for tmpfs mounts that don't turn off DefaultDependencies= we > > > implicit add in an After=swap.target ordering dep. The thinking was > >

Re: [systemd-devel] Changes to dependency graph during boot

2019-06-25 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mo, 24.06.19 16:41, Conrad Hoffmann ([email protected]) wrote: > Hi, > > TL;DR: I was wondering what happens if a unit executed early during the > boot process changes the current dependency graph by either enabling or > even starting another unit that was previously disabled. Is this defined

Re: [systemd-devel] swap on zram service unit, using Conflicts=umount

2019-06-25 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mo, 24.06.19 21:01, Chris Murphy ([email protected]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:11 AM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > That said, I don't really grok zram, and not sure why there's any need > > to detach it at all. I mean, if at shutdown we lose compressed RAM > > or lose uncompre

Re: [systemd-devel] swap on zram service unit, using Conflicts=umount

2019-06-25 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mo, 24.06.19 13:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote: > > So for tmpfs mounts that don't turn off DefaultDependencies= we > > implicit add in an After=swap.target ordering dep. The thinking was > > that there's no point in swapping in all data of a tmpfs because we > > want

Re: [systemd-devel] Is it possible to set a default for MemoryMax?

2019-06-25 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mo, 24.06.19 21:41, McKay, Sean ([email protected]) wrote: > Thanks for the pointer, Lennart! > > I've done some initial review of the commit you pointed me to, and > it seems like it should be pretty straightforward to use that > understanding to implement the other functions. Might take a bi