On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:31:55PM +0300, Kevin Wilson wrote: > Hello, systemd developers, > So we have now 3 V2 cgroups controller in the kernel (pids, memory and io). > The CPU controller as of now is not merged in and is available only in > an out of tree git repo (due to some debate over > it with kernel scheduler developers). Not sure that it will be merged > in the next 2 months. > > Fedora 25 is to be released in a month and a half, on 15 of November. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule > My questions are: > what are the intentions regarding using cgroup v2 in systemd in F25 > as the default instead of using cgroup V1? > Is the absence of the CPU controller is a reason for not having > cgroup V2 as a default in F25 ? and if so, why ?
Ignoring the question of Fedora switching, more generally, if any OS were to switch to cgroup v2 right now it would break a number of applications that use cgroups v1 today. v2 is not a plain no-op drop-in replacement for v1, as they have pretty different rules around the hierarchy management. Applications that create/manage cgroups properties/dirs need to be manually ported, not merely systemd itself. The absence of CPU controller support would also be a functional regression for some applications, effectively preventing use of cgroup v2 even if they were ported. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
