On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 08:20:03AM -0800, Marco Ballesio wrote: > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:43:00AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:51:31PM -0800, Marco Ballesio wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > did anyone have time to look into my proposal and, in case, are there > > > any suggestions, ideas or comments about it? > > > > Hello, Marco! > > > > I'm sorry, somehow I missed the original letter. > > > > In general the cgroup v1 interface is considered frozen. Are there any particular > > reasons why you want to extend the v1 freezer rather than use the v2 version of it? > > > > You don't even need to fully convert to cgroup v2 in order to do it, some v1 > > controllers can still be used. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Roman > > Hi Roman, > > When compared with backports of v2 features and their dependency chains, this > patch would be easier to carry in Android common. The potential is to have > killability for frozen processes on hw currently in use. I see... The implementation looks good to me, but I really not sure if adding new control files to cgroup v1 is a good idea at this point. Are there any plans in the Android world to move forward to cgroup v2? If not, why not? If there are any specific issues/dependencies, let's discuss and resolve them. Thanks! Roman
