From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756832Ab1KXQ6d (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:58:33 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44817 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756708Ab1KXQ6a convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:58:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1322153899.2921.71.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] Change CPUACCT to default n From: Peter Zijlstra To: Glauber Costa Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh , Paul Turner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, jbottomley@parallels.com, fweisbec@gmail.com Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:58:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4ECE731E.6030508@parallels.com> References: <1320182360-20043-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1320182360-20043-15-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4EBD94A0.9070703@google.com> <4EBE4A80.6090607@parallels.com> <20111117085251.443fefa5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4EC47632.2000904@parallels.com> <4EC52F32.2040708@parallels.com> <20111121105957.9c85db16.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1322141073.2921.51.camel@twins> <4ECE6BC4.7090600@parallels.com> <1322152152.2921.64.camel@twins> <4ECE731E.6030508@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 14:38 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote: > It's hard for me to say that, since I come from a virtualization > background: for us, a single cgroup would do just fine: even the > division between mem and cpu is not needed. However, I've been learning > recently that the use cases for that are quite diverse. So I'll have to > leave the answer to Balbir, and other interested parties. Hehe, I'm the one running a CGROUP=n kernel, so what do I know. Its just that all this stuff hurts my brain. Maybe we should just add functionality that requires controllers to be co-mounted and this extra functionality will then make people co-mount since you know features.. :-) I know I've wanted to do that several times, so far I've always resisted because it looked like pain, but hey, if I can cause more pain somewhere else and my life gets easier in the long run I might change my mind ;-)