On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> cc'ing Dhaval and Frederic. They were interested in the subject >> before and Dhaval was pretty vocal about cpuacct having a separate >> hierarchy (or at least granularity). > > Really? Time just has _not_ borne out this use-case. I'll let Dhaval > make a case for this but he should expect violent objection. > I am not objecting directly! I am aware of a few users who are (or at least were) using cpu and cpuacct separately because they want to be able to account without control. Having said that, there are tons of flaws in the current approach, because the accounting without control is just plain wrong. I have copied a few other folks who might be able to shed light on those users and if we should still consider them. [And the lesser number of controllers, the better it is!] Thanks! Dhaval -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>