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

[Greg KH]

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