From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: remove bind() method from cgroup_subsys. Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:30:03 +0800 Message-ID: <5166829B.9040509@huawei.com> References: <1365594077-17655-1-git-send-email-ramirose@gmail.com> <20130410175035.GA17641@mtj.dyndns.org> <5166199F.7090104@huawei.com> <5166600F.3090303@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5166600F.3090303-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: Tejun Heo , Rami Rosen , Cgroups On 2013/4/11 15:02, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/11/2013 06:06 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, Li. >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Li Zefan wrote: >>> I remember Glauber once used the bind() callback to detect if cpuacct and >>> cpu are mounted together and if so do some optimization. >>> >>> Then he gave up on it and just deprecated cpuacct, but then it was decided >>> that it can't be decprecated and removed as that will break userspace. >>> >>> So mayber Glauber will want to use this callback again? >> >> There was a patchset which made cpu provide the same stats as cpuacct >> if mounted together, which bitrotted while Peter was away. We probably >> should resurrect those patches. I don't recall whether it used ->bind >> or not. Glauber? >> > > The patch didn't suffer any change in its last 2 iteractions, so I was > just waiting for someone to apply =p (or well, say something) > > It re-uses the infrastructure that you built in cgroup.c to detect > comounting, so it does not use bind. > > I must add that I used bind just because "it was already there", and at > the time we were also quite concerned about not increasing even more the > number of callbacks. It is a horrible interface IMHO. > Thanks for the clarification! Then I'm fine with this patch.