Trying to reduce our memory and battery footprint
ted at ubuntu.com
Wed Oct 17 13:43:31 UTC 2012
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 13:18 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:07:58PM +0100, James Hunt wrote:
> > On 16/10/12 10:07, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:59:11AM +0100, James Hunt wrote:
> > >> The current thinking is in fact to have 1 process / user. I think Scott
> > >> was suggesting that everything _can_ be handled by PID 1, but whilst
> > >> that may be technically true, my view is that the benefits of 1 process
> > >> / user outweigh having PID 1 handle everything.
> > >
> > > Won't this mean that you'll have to have extra complexity to have pid 1
> > > tell the per-user upstart processes about dead processes, since only pid
> > > 1 is able to find out about these reliably? You'd need this, for
> > > example, to be able to have a respawning user job.
> > Unclear at this stage: we are still gathering requirements, so no
> > concrete design yet.
> > However, iff the plan is to allow arbitrary amounts of data to be stored
> > in a session, I'd prefer that to be external to PID 1 :-)
> I can understand that. I think we need a clear idea of how we're going
> to handle things like respawning before the desktop team makes any
> concrete plans, though; and preferably with a minimum of complex
> plumbing in upstart.
It was my understanding that we could get this by upstart putting all of
the processes in the user session in a cgroup for that user. This would
require upstart to be the first process in the user session, but I think
that's achievable. Is my understanding there incorrect?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the ubuntu-desktop