[systemd-devel] [PATCH v2] cgroup-util: fix is_valid check to pass for unified cgroup hierchy.

Dimitri John Ledkov dimitri.j.ledkov at intel.com
Fri May 29 04:42:27 PDT 2015

On 29 May 2015 at 11:25, Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29.05.15 00:24, Dimitri John Ledkov (dimitri.j.ledkov at intel.com) wrote:
>> On 28 May 2015 at 18:08, Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28.05.15 16:42, Dimitri John Ledkov (dimitri.j.ledkov at intel.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> It appears in /proc/self/cgroup as `0::/'
>> >
>> > What precisely does this fix?
>> >
>> > I mean, we need to do some major rework of things before the unified
>> > hierarchy is really supported in systemd, and this one thing won't
>> > really get us too much in this regard, does it?
>> >
>> I'm starting to explore possibilities to start work towards supporting
>> unified cgroups hierarchy, or at least be able to boot with it. I'll
>> send a larger patch series in one go later than with all the bits that
>> offer something more tangible, albeit disabled by default behind
>> configure options (like kdbus) given that unified hierarchy is still
>> marked experimental in the kernel.
> Ah, it's actually my big thing to work on for the next weeks too...

My current priority is to port at least enough bits to get usable
/sys/fs/cgroup/systemd on top of unified cgroups, with immediate
benefit of dropping systemd-cgroups-agent and getting release
notifications in containers.

Not sure about transition / re-exec plan, at the moment I am assuming
either/or situation but I guess we'd need to support a dual case,
where upon re-exec we might still be in name=systemd rather than in
the unified structure.


Pura Vida!

Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list