From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96C0449B for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua0-f170.google.com (mail-ua0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4820419C for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:29:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 20so18755455uak.0 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:29:01 -0700 Message-ID: To: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [LAST-MINUTE TOPIC] cgroup API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Would it make sense to have a session to try to resolve the current cgroup v2 API disagreement? In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to rehash the issues here, but in extremely short summary, they include tasks in non-leaf cgroups as well as whether threads in the same process can be in different cgroups.