On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:54:24PM -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:34 PM, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So here's my question: will a system using systemd still allow > > this, *without* requiring source modifications to each and every > > application (to join a specific cgroup), and *whitout* every > > application requiring real-time or memory locks to be 'registered' > > somewhere ? > > i don't believe it would have any ill effect, but would need some testing. > > i'm not 100% how it all ties into systemd, but a process being in a > cgroup does not need permission/acceptance/patch from the process; > it's just in it. cgroups are also hierarchical, so you can have > groups of groups. there are several cgroup types (cpu/mem/etc) and > each process can be in exactly one of each. All correct. But a system using systemd (and hence cgroups) will put an application either into some default cgroup (which will very probably not have the required privileges, and hence needs code in the application to move to another cgroup), or it will require some 'registry' of applications that require a specific cgroup to run in. Both are a real PITA compared to what whe have today. Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline.
