On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:18:59PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:05:04PM -0700, Sonny Rao wrote: > > I am surprised if anyone actually wants this behavior, we (Chrome OS) > > The behavior is silly but consistent in that it doesn't allow empty active > cpusets and it has been like that for many many years now. > > > found out about it accidentally, and then found that Android had been > > carrying a patch to fix it. And if it were a desirable behavior then > > why isn't it an option in v2? > > Nobody is saying it's a good behavior (hence the change in cgroup2) and there > are situations where changing things like this is justifiable, but, here: > > * The proposed change makes the interface inconsistent and does so > unconditionally on what is now a mostly legacy interface. > > * There already is a newer version of the interface which includes the > desired behavior. > > * I forgot but as Waiman pointed out, you can even opt-in to the new > behavior, which is more comprehensive without the inconsitencies, > while staying on cgroup1. Thank you Tejun, Waiman and Sonny. I confirmed the cgroup_v2_mode option fixes cgroup v1's broken behavior. We will use this mount option on our systems to fix it. thanks, - Joel
