[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 14/14] Change CPUACCT to default n
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Li Zefan <> wrote:
>> despite it being a not entirely natural fit.  Something I proposed at
>> Prague and that we could explore here is the idea of a co-mounted
>> controller.  In this example it would only be mountable with cpu so
>> you could always depend on the cpu hierarchy being there; likewise we
>> can put (jump-labeled) touchpoints within the cpu-subsystem to call
>> out for updates as appropriate when the co-mount exists.
> IIUC, this co-mounting idea is something I implemented years ago:
> The use case and the reason it was rejected:

Rejection is a bit of a strong statement -- the idea seemed amenable
but lacking a strong use-case. That said, taking a deep look at some
of what Glauber is trying to do in this series I don't think it's
something that would help here.

For this discussion the motivation for a co-mount would be to
piggy-back on the cpu sub-systems own hierarchy walks to reduce
overhead. However, this is not structured in a way that can take
advantage of this, and, looking at what Glauber is attempting to
collect it's not clear that it can be.

I think this moves the discussion towards whether we should consider
deprecating some of the exported fields (namely usage and
usage_per_cpu) from cpuacct instead of the entire controller as we had
initially desired. This would allow cpuacct to exist with a much
lower overhead, especially within the context-switch path.

- Paul

> --
> Li Zefan
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-26 14:11    [W:0.106 / U:4.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site