Hi Severin, makes sense ! Maybe you could adjust the comment and add a bit of info about this .
I do not need to see a new webrev . Best regards, Matthias > > What you are seeing here is a hybrid system[1]. My workstation is > hybrid as well. Legacy and hybrid systems are being detected as cgroup > v1. A hybrid systems mostly behaves like a cgroup v1 system. All the > controllers are mounted via cgroup v1. If if was detected as cgroup v2 > (unified) most of the imposed memory/cpu limits wouldn't be accounted > for. > > > > > But the comment in > > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK- > 8239559/02/webrev/src/java.base/linux/classes/jdk/internal/platform/Cgro > upSubsystemFactory.java.frames.html > > > > > > says > > > > 102 // For cgroups v2 all controllers need to have zero hierarchy > > id > > 103 // and /proc/self/mountinfo needs to have at least one cgroup > filesystem > > 104 // mounted. > > > > > > Should this comment be adjusted ? > > On the system above we have no 0 in /proc/cgroups however it seems > to me the system supports cgroug v2 ? > > The comment is still correct. There is a difference between a true > cgroup v2 only system and a hybrid system like the one you are seing. > We should only detect true cgroup v2 systems as such. > > Does that make sense? >
