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
