On Tue, 08 Aug 2017, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

> Adam Borowski - 08.08.17, 18:57:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:53:56AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > Be careful recommending cgroups.
> > >
> > > I've never used them, and know little about them, but I know they were
> > > one of the main excuses for systemd.
> >
> > Uhm, what? Systemd uses ELF objects too, should we go with a.out for this
> > reason?
> >
> > cgroups are a way to say "this group of processes may not use more than 2GB
> > memory". How else would you ensure a misbehaving set of daemons / container
> > /etc does not bring down the rest of the system with it?
>
> I agree that cgroups can be a useful feature. Yet… also a bit clumsy to use,
> and not free of race conditions. That written, kernel developers are working
> to fix part of the clumsyness and completely and all of the race conditions by
> unifying all cgroup controllers (memory, cpu and so on) in one directory tree.

is the sourcecode of systemd the *only* example implementation of an
INIT 1 daemon using cgroups right now?

here I see a lot of Go code
https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=cgroups&type=

so why systemd is considered to be the only supervisor implementation
supporting cgroups? because all the rest are just libraries?

I'm a bit confused and very curious

ciao!