From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2793 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Laurent Bercot" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 12:32:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190831130730.ki6ma7i5curucowe@caspervector> <20190901091157.bjtfhqq6d2rg75yo@caspervector> <20190927083816.tectynx7dzlfcvb7@caspervector> <20191012173743.drzlgnrw4hib6hh4@caspervector> <20191117062644.lt6wfmqwijqqhc5w@caspervector> <20191226175258.o2nsregew6tlqlbu@caspervector> <20191227112309.3fow6vynss2ifw4t@caspervector> Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="268836"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.36908.0 To: "Casper Ti. Vector" , supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-2382-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Dec 27 13:32:30 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from alyss.skarnet.org ([95.142.172.232]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ikon7-0017pH-E5 for gcsg-supervision@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:32:29 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2924 invoked by uid 89); 27 Dec 2019 12:32:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm Original-Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Original-Received: (qmail 2917 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2019 12:32:54 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20191227112309.3fow6vynss2ifw4t@caspervector> X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvddvkedgfeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecupfgfoffgtffkveetuefngfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhhrfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgruhhrvghnthcuuegvrhgtohhtfdcuoehskhgrqdhsuhhpvghrvhhishhiohhnsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2793 Archived-At: >I also wonder if someone on this mailing list is interested in actually >implementing a cgroup-based babysitter as is outlined in the post, >perhaps packaged together with standalone workalikes of the cgroup >chainloaders (`create-control-group' etc) from nosh? Is there real pressure to have this? The problem with such a "babysitter" is that it would need to forward signals, much like execline's trap program. It's ugly, and I'd rather have people not do that any more than strictly necessary. If there's important pressure to have cgroups support, I will probably end up applying some version or another of jlyo's patch to s6-supervise, which makes s6-supervise itself the babysitter. That would allow the supervised process to operate as usual. The reason why I didn't want to apply this patch in the first place is that it's Linux-specific, so it would introduce divergent behaviour in s6 depending on the system it's running on. But it's probably workable with some build-time + run-time configuration, I need to think more about this. As for cgroups-related chainloaders, I could probably write some in s6-linux-utils, but wasn't the cgroups interface designed to make sure those operations are trivial to implement as small scripts? >[And I really like using the word "babysit" here, which comes with a >nice degree of derogatoriness without being excessive.] I don't, for several reasons, one of which is that Google's homemade supervisor (which is... not great) is called "babysitter", and it=20 triggers cringey memories. -- Laurent