On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:28:39AM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Thu, 2022-03-24 at 09:38 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mi, 23.03.22 11:28, Luca Boccassi (bluca@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > At least according to our documentation it wouldn't save us much > > > anyway, as the biggest leap is taking cgroupv2 for granted, which > > > requires 4.1, so it's included regardless. Unless there's something > > > undocumented that would make a big difference, in practical terms of > > > maintainability? > > > > Note that "cgroupv2 exists" and "cgroupv2 works well" are two distinct > > things. Initially too few controllers supported cgroupv2 for cgroupv2 > > to be actually useful. > > > > What I am trying to say is that it would actually help us a lot if > > we'd not just be able to take croupv2 for granted but to take a > > reasonably complete cgroupv2 for granted. > > Yes, that does sound like worth exploring - our README doesn't document > it though, do we have a list of required controllers and when they were > introduced? In the README: Linux kernel >= 4.2 for unified cgroup hierarchy support Linux kernel >= 4.10 for cgroup-bpf egress and ingress hooks Linux kernel >= 4.15 for cgroup-bpf device hook Linux kernel >= 4.17 for cgroup-bpf socket address hooks In this light, 4.19 is better than 4.4 or 4.9 ;) Zbyszek