From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] cpuacct, cgroup: Kill cgroup_subsys.active Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:29:49 +0800 Message-ID: <51636F0D.5060000@huawei.com> References: <51553813.10004@huawei.com> <1364553360.5053.84.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1364553360.5053.84.camel@laptop> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , LKML , Cgroups Hi Ingo, Any chance for this patchset and the other one to be queued for 3.10? Both of them has been acked by Peter. On 2013/3/29 18:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 14:43 +0800, Li Zefan wrote: >> cpuacct is the only user of cgroup_subsys.active flag. >> >> The flag is needed because cpuacct_charge() and >> cpuacct_account_field() can >> be called when cpuacct hasn't been initialized during system bootup. >> >> This patch initializes cpuacct earlier, and the result is we don't >> have >> to check the flag in scheduler hot path. >> >> Note, this patchset is based on "[PATCH v2 0/7] sched: Split cpuacct" >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/28/1 >> >> 0001-cpuacct-allocate-per_cpu-cpuusage-for-root-cpuacct-s.patch >> 0002-cpuacct-Initialize-root-cpuacct-earlier.patch >> 0003-cpuacct-Initialize-cpuacct-subsystem-earlier.patch >> 0004-cpuacct-No-need-to-check-subsys-active-state.patch >> 0005-cgroup-Remove-subsys.active-flag.patch > > > Seems sane enough > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra >