Hello, On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:33:06PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 01:20:37PM +0800, brookxu <brookxu.cn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah, this is more reasonable. But there is still one question, whether we > > need to be consistent with other cgroup subsystems, events and events.local > > under v1 should not support hierarchy？ > > My take is that it's acceptable to present the v2-like files in v1 too > for the sake of simplicity since: > - this is not used yet, > - the v1 is less conventional and > - the presence of events.local would cater even to cases with tasks in > inner nodes. > > It'd be good to have Tejun's insight on this too. My general appraoch is * If it's trivial both in terms of complexity and effort to add support for cgroup1, oh well, why not? * Otherwise, don't bother. * cgroup1 interface is wildly inconsistent anyway, so I wouldn't worry much about that. Thanks. -- tejun
