[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110222044035.GL10342@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:10:35 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [CFS Bandwidth Control v4 5/7] sched: add exports tracking cfs
bandwidth control statistics
* Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2011-02-22 09:43:33]:
> >
> > Should we consider integrating this in cpuacct, it would be difficult
> > if we spill over stats between controllers.
>
> Given that cpuacct controller can be mounted independently, I am not sure
> if we should integrate these stats. These stats come from cpu controller.
The accounting controller was created to account. I'd still prefer
cpuacct, so that I can find everything in one place. NOTE: cpuacct was
created so that we do accounting with control - just account. I think
splitting stats creates a usability mess - no?
--
Three Cheers,
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