On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Paul Turner [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello,

cc'ing Dhaval and Frederic.  They were interested in the subject
before and Dhaval was pretty vocal about cpuacct having a separate
hierarchy (or at least granularity).

Really?  Time just has _not_ borne out this use-case.  I'll let Dhaval
make a case for this but he should expect violent objection.

I am not objecting directly! I am aware of a few users who are (or at
least were) using cpu and cpuacct separately because they want to be
able to account without control. Having said that, there are tons of
flaws in the current approach, because the accounting without control
is just plain wrong. I have copied a few other folks who might be able
to shed light on those users and if we should still consider them.

[And the lesser number of controllers, the better it is!]

Thanks!
Dhaval

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>