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.
