Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1

[taoyi.ty]

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.