[systemd-devel] [HEADSUP] cgroup changes

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tejun Heo <tj at kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Andy.
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I guess what I'm trying to say here is that many systems will rather
>> fundamentally use systemd.  Admins of those systems should still have
>> access to a reasonably large subset of cgroup functionality.  If the
>> single-hierarchy model is going to prevent going around systemd and if
>> systemd isn't going to expose all of the useful cgroup functionality,
>> then perhaps there should be a way to separate systemd's hierarchy
>> from the cgroup hierarchy.
>
> I don't think systemd will prevent you from buildling your own
> hierarchy on the side.  It sure won't be properly supported and things
> might break in corener cases / over time but if you're willing to take
> such risks anyway...  In the long term tho, what should happen
> probably is examining use cases like yours and then incorporating
> sensible mechanisms to support that into the base system
> infrastructure.  It might not be completely identical but I'm sure
> over time we'll be able to find what are the fundamental pieces and
> proper abstractions.  Right now, we're exposing way too much without
> even clearly understanding what are being enabled.  It is
> unsustainable.

Now I'm confused.  I thought that support for multiple hierarchies was
going away.  Is it here to stay after all?

--Andy