Quoting Mike Galbraith (bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx): > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 14:20 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Tim. > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:07:47PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > > > I really want to understand why this is SO IMPORTANT that you have to > > > break userspace compatibility? I mean, isn't Linux supposed to be the > > > OS with the stable kernel interface? I've seen Linus rant time and > > > time again about this - why is it OK now? > > > > What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is breaking userland > > interface. A new version of interface is being phased in and the old > > one will stay there for the foreseeable future. It will be phased out > > eventually but that's gonna take a long time and it will have to be > > something hardly noticeable. Of course new features will only be > > available with the new interface and there will be efforts to nudge > > people away from the old one but the existing interface will keep > > working it does. > > I can understand some alarm. When I saw the below I started frothing at > the face and howling at the moon, and I don't even use the things much. > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011521.html > > Hierarchy layout aside, that "private property" bit says that the folks > who currently own and use the cgroups interface will lose direct access > to it. I can imagine folks who have become dependent upon an on the fly > management agents of their own design becoming a tad alarmed. FWIW, the code is too embarassing yet to see daylight, but I'm playing with a very lowlevel cgroup manager which supports nesting itself. Access in this POC is low-level ("set freezer.state to THAWED for cgroup /c1/c2", "Create /c3"), but the key feature is that it can run in two modes - native mode in which it uses cgroupfs, and child mode where it talks to a parent manager to make the changes. So then the idea would be that userspace (like libvirt and lxc) would talk over /dev/cgroup to its manager. Userspace inside a container (which can't actually mount cgroups itself) would talk to its own manager which is talking over a passed-in socket to the host manager, which in turn runs natively (uses cgroupfs, and nests "create /c1" under the requestor's cgroup). At some point (probably soon) we might want to talk about a standard API for these things. However I think it will have to come in the form of a standard library, which knows to either send requests over dbus to systemd, or over /dev/cgroup sock to the manager. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
