All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "taoyi.ty" <escape@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, yzaikin@google.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, shanpeic@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 08:01:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTr0n+lRtgwXXOD/@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a91912e2-606a-0868-7a0c-38dec5012b02@linux.alibaba.com>

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:15:02AM +0800, taoyi.ty wrote:
> 
> 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.

That does not mean we have to add additional kernel complexity for an
obsolete feature that we are not adding support for anymore.  If
anything, this would be a good reason to move those userspace services
to the new api to solve this issue, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
To: "taoyi.ty" <escape-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>
Cc: tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	lizefan.x-EC8Uxl6Npydl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org,
	hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org,
	mcgrof-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org,
	yzaikin-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	shanpeic-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 08:01:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTr0n+lRtgwXXOD/@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a91912e2-606a-0868-7a0c-38dec5012b02-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:15:02AM +0800, taoyi.ty wrote:
> 
> 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.

That does not mean we have to add additional kernel complexity for an
obsolete feature that we are not adding support for anymore.  If
anything, this would be a good reason to move those userspace services
to the new api to solve this issue, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-10  6:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-08 12:15 [RFC PATCH 0/2] support cgroup pool in v1 Yi Tao
2021-09-08 12:15 ` Yi Tao
2021-09-08 12:15 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] add pinned flags for kernfs node Yi Tao
2021-09-08 12:15   ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1 Yi Tao
2021-09-08 12:15     ` Yi Tao
2021-09-08 12:35     ` Greg KH
2021-09-08 12:35       ` Greg KH
     [not found]       ` <084930d2-057a-04a7-76d1-b2a7bd37deb0@linux.alibaba.com>
2021-09-09 13:27         ` Greg KH
2021-09-10  2:20           ` taoyi.ty
2021-09-10  2:15       ` taoyi.ty
2021-09-10  2:15         ` taoyi.ty
2021-09-10  6:01         ` Greg KH [this message]
2021-09-10  6:01           ` Greg KH
2021-09-08 15:30     ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08 16:52     ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08 17:39     ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08 17:39     ` [RFC PATCH] cgroup_pool_mutex can be static kernel test robot
2021-09-08 12:35   ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] add pinned flags for kernfs node Greg KH
2021-09-08 12:35     ` Greg KH
2021-09-10  2:14     ` taoyi.ty
2021-09-10  6:00       ` Greg KH
2021-09-10  6:00         ` Greg KH
2021-09-08 16:26   ` kernel test robot
2021-09-08 12:37 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] support cgroup pool in v1 Greg KH
2021-09-10  2:11   ` taoyi.ty
2021-09-10  6:01     ` Greg KH
2021-09-10  6:01       ` Greg KH
2021-09-10 16:49     ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-10 16:49       ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-13 14:20       ` Christian Brauner
2021-09-13 14:20         ` Christian Brauner
2021-09-13 16:24         ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-13 16:24           ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-08 16:35 ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-10  2:12   ` taoyi.ty

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YTr0n+lRtgwXXOD/@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=escape@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=shanpeic@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=yzaikin@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.