[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Bug#580814: Parallellizing the boot in Debian Squeeze - ready for wider testing

> This does mean that when you use something like screen, the tty it was
> connected to is from then on unusable, right? As the cgroup that
> contains the screen process also contains the getty and it doesn't
> kill one without the other as that is in no way reliable :-)

I investigated using cgroups in Upstart a while back, and hit the exact
same issue.  There are two obvious solutions:

 - allow a process to escape its cgroup (kernel patch); this is
   completely insane, since cgroups are primarily used for security
   containers, system policies, etc.  Being able to escape your
   container would be a Bad Thing

 - having init actively monitor the processes in some way, and remove
   them from the cgroup itself - in which case, cgroups lose their
   entire appeal and you may as well use the proc connector (which is
   what Upstart 0.10 will use)

Also note that Kay's assertion that there's no way to know all the
processes you need to kill is incorrect.  UNIX solved this decades ago
with process groups.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: