Not again. This post has absolutely nothing to do with Slackware...why is it that people who just want to troll systemd, pulseaudio or Lennart come to the Slackware forum to do it?

The important points are #1 and #2

As indicated by Skaperen, systemd is not strictly speaking a dependency of cgroups. Another piece of software can implement the necesary API, but someone will have to make and maintain this software.

Hi,

unfortunately, systemd has a lot to do with Linux distros (and soon kernel subsystems ?).
You just have to be vigilant about the nature of the evil you call light in the tunnel ...

http://www.linux.com/news/featured-b...roups-redesign

Quote:
"Systemd and cgroup developers are working together to turn systemd into a global cgroup manager that creates higher-level control knobs and prevents direct access to the kernel."

Btw, there is one picture missing there !

So, should we congratulate Debian to successful transition to systemd, and then ourselves ?
jb

yes, this

I bet most of you are not even using cgroups.

The kernel wouldn't just get forked, Linus himself could be put on blast with every instance of social media as to why he let it happen, and the Linux Foundation would be severely ridiculed for why they allowed this. It could become a PR nightmare.

The only people who would win would be Red Hat who would attempt to step in and seize control of Linux entirely, Microsoft who would laugh and claim Linux, GNU, and open source are all more fractured than ever, and FreeBSD who would be opening their doors to the flood of new users.

*Sarcastically* That's it! I declare that Lennart Poeterring be hit in the face with a banana creme custard pie upon sight!

I configure them out of my kernels to reduce scheduling overhead, along with the virtualisation and namespace stuff I simply don't need. The resource management they provide is very useful on large systems running multiple virtual machines/containers and hosting a large number of other disparate services, but they're simply not needed on a desktop / workstation machine.

Or, at least weren't needed until that which must not be named came along and subverted them for the purpose of tracking child processes.

What kind of improvements do you notice? All of my systems here are desktop workstations. One system runs VirtualBox VMs but only as needed, not 24/7.

Related, what kind of degradations would such a user notice with cgroups enabled in the kernel but not being knowingly used in any way?

Hi,

Here is one more good overview of the topic:
https://lwn.net/Articles/557082/
where the essence is described in first two paragraphs, ending with this
description of desired solution:
"...; the hope is to have a single, privileged process handling all of the cgroup management tasks. That process will, in turn, provide some sort of higher-level interface to the rest of the system."

Enter systemd ???
Our nimble incarnation of system init process, which provides a replacement for sysvinit, but also for pm-utils, inetd, acpid, syslog, watchdog, cron and atd, and obsoletes
ConsoleKit.
A wunderwaffe ! Why bother to search for God Particle under Alps ?

Yes, cgroups have a specific purpose, namely to control allocation of resources to groups
of processes, but not (courtesy of systemd) that ...
"Or, at least weren't needed until that which must not be named came along and subverted them for the purpose of tracking child processes."
@GazL: Well said, Sir !

jb

Isn't slack run bu one really smart dude? That one really smart dud will tell you what your init will be when he decides what that will be. It seems overly dramatic to worry that anyone else does no matter whi they are and what they say. You live in a benevolent dictatorship much like Mac users don't worry until that SC says so.

I don't think there would really be any discernible difference unless there are actually active cgroups to manage, but it seems logical to believe that the less the kernel has to think about the more efficient it should be, and removing the cgroup, virtulisation and namespace code from the execution path ought to save a few cycles here and there due to the simplified logic. Perhaps when the system is at full load it might amount to a percentage point or two, but that's pure speculation and I've got no hard facts to back up that guess. You'd need to benchmark this stuff to get a accurate understand of its true impact, and that's over my head.

What I can say is that when I tried CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP which puts things in their own cgroups, I wasn't happy with the results, and I found sensible use of 'nice' priorities and 'chrt' far more effective, but again I have no evidence to offer on that.

"I didn't need it so I turned it off", is probably all one should take from my comments. ;)