Bug#803013: systemd should not destroy application created cgroups

[paul.szabo at sydney.edu.au]

Progress? For my efforts upstream, I got the comment:

> Sorry, but systemd implements a single-writer cgroup logic (as
> requested by the kernel maintainers), and hence takes possesion of the
> whole tree. ...

I observe it only uses the /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd tree.
(I wonder about the "req by kernel" comment.)

> ... If you want your own cgroup tree to manage, use the "Delegate=yes"
> feature in a service or scope, but otherwise systemd is in exclusive
> control.

Do we have that? Can we have it everywhere? Can we have it by default,
should not it be so?

> Sorry, but multiple access to the cgroup tree is simply not supported.

Not if we let systemd take over the world.

---

Sorry, I do not think I am willing to fight the war upstream.
(Knowing full well that then maybe Linux will turn to mush, and that to
escape this dictatorship we will all seek shelter under the MS umbrella.)

Cheers, Paul

Paul Szabo   psz at maths.usyd.edu.au   http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics   University of Sydney    Australia