[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316788526.9084.45.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:35:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...allels.com,
paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
mingo@...e.hu, jbottomley@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Remove parent field in cpuacct cgroup
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:39 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> Android makes heavy use of cpuacct as well. We invented it to do cpu
> >> accounting independent of control
> >
> > But its a massive waste of time to have to iterate a double hierarchy,
> > cache-miss heaven.
> >
>
> By double hierarchy you mean both cpu and cpuacct?
Yes
> What if they are not mounted together?
I was asking if there was a real reason not to have that.
> > Or so people really have independent cgroups as well? I thought people
> > just co-mount all this crap.
> >
>
> Please see
> http://code.google.com/p/cgroupmgr/wiki/cgroupsForAndroid
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6814207/android-cpuacct-usage-file
>
> AFAIK, some versions mount cpuacct at /acct and independent of cpu cgroups
They do now, but can that be fixed? Is there a sane use-case?
Overhead really must come down of all this crap.
--
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