Have sane default values for cpusets
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [PATCH] remove bogus #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT for debug_kmap_atomic()
Next: [pm] resume from s3 oops? (last checked on rc6)
From: Peter Zijlstra on 14 May 2010 03:30 On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 08:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Init using the bare minimum possible only seems like a sensible thing. > Once the basic stuff is running you can detect whats available and use > it if needed/wanted. I really think init should be able to run regardless of any CONFIG_* option. The only thing that should avoid init from running is not being able to mount the filesystem with init on it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Balbir Singh on 14 May 2010 04:20 * Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> [2010-05-14 09:23:41]: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 08:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Init using the bare minimum possible only seems like a sensible thing. > > Once the basic stuff is running you can detect whats available and use > > it if needed/wanted. > > I really think init should be able to run regardless of any CONFIG_* > option. The only thing that should avoid init from running is not being > able to mount the filesystem with init on it. > I suppose we'll continue to have alternative with the init= commandline option. If you look at the boot process today, we do already rely on features (CONFIG_*) for bootup. Changing the default to have CONFIG_CGROUP=y (without any of the controllers) would work, won't it? Is that too high an overhead/build or runtime wise? -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Peter Zijlstra on 14 May 2010 06:40 On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 13:42 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Heh! agreed, but we are a small population and moreover a large > population would benefit from systemd and parallel boot. CONFIG_CGROUP=y isn't a requirement for parallel boot. People have been doing that for years without it. And I'm not against systemd using cgroups per-se, I'm against it mandating it. It could simply not use them and not provide whatever it needs them for when not present. CONFIG_CGROUP is an option, so people can say no. Same for CONFIG_SYSFS, udev gets highly unhappy when disabled, but init still works and you do get a shell of some sort. If you pre-populate your /dev with static device nodes you can actually make it all the way to runlevel 3 the last time I tried. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Dhaval Giani on 14 May 2010 08:00 On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 13:42 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> Heh! agreed, but we are a small population and moreover a large >> population would benefit from systemd and parallel boot. > > CONFIG_CGROUP=y isn't a requirement for parallel boot. People have been > doing that for years without it. > > And I'm not against systemd using cgroups per-se, I'm against it > mandating it. It could simply not use them and not provide whatever it > needs them for when not present. > > CONFIG_CGROUP is an option, so people can say no. > I think that is reasonable. There should be a fallback for folks who want to run their own kernel (though I cannot imagine why they would want to turn off cgroups ;-) ). Thanks! Dhaval -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Lennart Poettering on 14 May 2010 12:10
On Fri, 14.05.10 08:53, Peter Zijlstra (peterz(a)infradead.org) wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 11:13 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > I think the config options are the domains of the distributors > > Whoever runs a distro kernel anyway? This is LKML, we're kernel devs. Well, sorry to bring that to you, but I didn't really design systemd as a development tool for lkml developers. Instead I designed it as a general purposes system manager. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |