From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F63C433FE for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 02:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C17461153 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 02:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229750AbhIJCQQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 22:16:16 -0400 Received: from out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.45]:44565 "EHLO out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229524AbhIJCQP (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 22:16:15 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R121e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04395;MF=escape@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=11;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0Unqfv0i_1631240102; Received: from B-W5MSML85-1937.local(mailfrom:escape@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Unqfv0i_1631240102) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:03 +0800 From: "taoyi.ty" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1 To: Greg KH 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 References: <03e2b37678c9b2aef4f5dee303b3fb87a565d56b.1631102579.git.escape@linux.alibaba.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:02 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "taoyi.ty" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:02 +0800 Message-ID: References: <03e2b37678c9b2aef4f5dee303b3fb87a565d56b.1631102579.git.escape@linux.alibaba.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" To: Greg KH 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 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.