[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance

[Jan Alexander Steffens]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Martin Steigerwald
<Martin at lichtvoll.de> wrote:
> Then systemd may use it as PID 1, but if someother wants to use it in own
> project, can use it as well. I consider cgroups as part of the kernel API and
> I highly dislike the battle on which of the available solutions will get
> control over it. Actually I still think the API is broke if it cannot allow
> for mutiple processes accessing it. I don´t know an easy way to fix it, but I
> think such a kind of API as kernel interface… anyone can read a file, mount a
> filesystem, open a network socket, set a nice value depending on permissions
> but when it comes to control groups it is down to "one to rule them all". I
> can´t help it, but this just seems utterly broke to me.
>
> I can´t help it but I don´t consider this to be a sane operating system API.

Note that the maintainers of the kernel-side cgroup API (primarily
Tejun Heo, AFAIK) consider the current interface insane. In the
future, the kernel will expect a single userspace process to control a
single hierarchy. Systemd has already been adapted to provide this
schema using the current API. See
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-June/011521.html
.