LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2013, 03:58 AM   #16
Phorize
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 217

Rep: Reputation: 23

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?
 
Old 11-07-2013, 06:08 AM   #17
blancamolinos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Posts: 7

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by STDOUBT View Post
blancamolinos,
Would you care to point out where Pottering says "Linux kernel itself will force the use of systemd"?
Because there is no mention of "Linux" anywhere in his post.
Thanks.
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.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 10:51 AM   #18
jb.1234abcd
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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
 
Old 11-07-2013, 11:02 AM   #19
ponce
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,447

Rep: Reputation: 875Reputation: 875Reputation: 875Reputation: 875Reputation: 875Reputation: 875Reputation: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb.1234abcd View Post
Btw, there is one picture missing there !
yes, this
Attached Images
File Type: jpg look.jpg (19.3 KB, 46 views)
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-07-2013, 11:33 AM   #20
Petri Kaukasoina
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 242

Rep: Reputation: 86
I bet most of you are not even using cgroups.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 11:48 AM   #21
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,185
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
Yeah, for sure...

And the kernel would be forked then.

It seems to be very important to someone, that Slackware adopts systemd. Maybe the whole "switch all distributions over" world domination plan gets destroyed by Slackware not switching. Says something about the relevance of this distribution, which gets not very much media coverage.

Seeing this astroturfing, I trust the 0pointer code even less. Maybe someone wants to place a backdoor on every Linux box...
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!
 
Old 11-07-2013, 12:08 PM   #22
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,392

Rep: Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petri Kaukasoina View Post
I bet most of you are not even using cgroups.
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.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 12:47 PM   #23
Woodsman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 3,482

Rep: Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534
Quote:
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.
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?

Last edited by Woodsman; 11-07-2013 at 12:50 PM.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 01:25 PM   #24
jb.1234abcd
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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
 
Old 11-07-2013, 02:19 PM   #25
Germany_chris
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: CENTOS 6.5
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: 198Reputation: 198
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.
 
Old 11-07-2013, 02:38 PM   #26
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,392

Rep: Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
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?
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.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: The H Roundup - Systemd 197, VMware and Vert.x, Compiz's future LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-12-2013 09:30 AM
[SOLVED] systemd and Slackware's future kikinovak Slackware 95 07-14-2012 11:40 AM
Boot Delay 30min: systemd-analyze blame systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service BGHolmes Fedora 0 07-27-2011 09:02 AM
Can we have a bright future in Linux Kernel Programming or relerant fields? kennithwang Linux - Kernel 2 08-16-2007 06:12 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration