Consider the following v2 hierarchy.

  P0 (+memory) --- P1 (-memory) --- A
                                 \- B
       
P0 has memory enabled in its subtree_control while P1 doesn't.  If
both A and B contain processes, they would belong to the memory css of
P1.  Now if memory is enabled on P1's subtree_control, memory csses
should be created on both A and B and A's processes should be moved to
the former and B's processes the latter.  IOW, enabling controllers
can cause atomic migrations into different csses.

The core cgroup migration logic has been updated accordingly but the
controller migration methods haven't and still assume that all tasks
migrate to a single target css; furthermore, the methods were fed the
css in which subtree_control was updated which is the parent of the
target csses.  pids controller depends on the migration methods to
move charges and this made the controller attribute charges to the
wrong csse...