Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] Change CPUACCT to default n

[Balbir Singh]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>

It is not about $customer. I am OK with a design that allows
accounting independent of control. Put it another way when I look at
cgroups, I see the following functionality

1. Accounting and feedback
2. Control

Why do 1 and 2 have to co-exist. A good case would be that we might
need just stats and might want to implement control based on 1. But if
I have to do both 1 and 2 together, how do we decide on control
values?

Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/