[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090312043518.GH23583@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:05:18 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuacct: per-cgroup utime/stime statistics - v1
* Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-03-12 09:59:51]:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:04:34PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-11 09:38:12]:
> >
> > > BTW, I'm not sure but don't we need special handling if
> > > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y ?
> >
> > Good point. Bharata, with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING, utime and stime
> > is accounted for within the architecture.
>
> True, but as I replied to Kamezawa in the other thread, these
> architectures are still dependent on generic implementations of
> account_{system,user}_time() which feed to per-process and system-wide
> accounting. And this is where we have hooks for per-cgroup accounting.
Fair enough...
> So I don't see why we need to handle these archs specially. Do I miss
> something ?
May be we should cc the patch to linux-arch as well to make sure
we handled all architectures correctly.
--
Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists