Messages in this thread | | | From | "taoyi.ty" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1 | Date | Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:02 +0800 |
| |
On 2021/9/8 下午8:35, Greg KH wrote: > I thought cgroup v1 was "obsolete" and not getting new features added to > it. What is wrong with just using cgroups 2 instead if you have a > problem with the v1 interface? > >
There are two reasons for developing based on cgroup v1:
1. In the Internet scenario, a large number of services
are still using cgroup v1, cgroup v2 has not yet been
popularized.
2. The mechanism of cgroup pool refers to cgroup1_rename,
but for some reasons, a similar rename mechanism is not
implemented on cgroup v2, and I don't know the thoughts
behind this.
| |