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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 10:05 +0800, 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:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/18/389
> 
> The use case and the reason it was rejected:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/1/97

"This allows one subsystem to require that it only be mounted when some
other subsystems are also present in the proposed hierarchy."

That's not exactly what I meant, what I meant was that say you co-mount
cpu,cpuset the combined mount provides more features/better performance
than if you don't. Which then provides a natural incentive to actually
co-mount the stuff.

You patch looks like it forces the co-mount.
--
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/