[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages
    Sorry for this late reply.

    >> [1] Is it necessary 'fork/exec/exit' event handling framework ?
    >> Some process-aggregation model have own philosophy and implemantation,
    >> so it's hard to integrate. Thus, I think that common 'fork/exec/exit'
    >> event handling
    >> framework to implement any kinds of process-aggregation.
    > BSD needs an exit hook and ELSA needs a fork hook. I am still
    > evaluating whether CSA can use the ELSA module. If CSA can use the
    > ELSA module, CSA maybe would be fine with the fork hook.

    If CSA can use an ELSA module, then we must modify the kernel-tree
    for ELSA's fork-connecter. This means it's hard to implement the fork/exec/exit
    event notification to userspace (,or any kernel module) without kernel-support.
    How CSA shoule be implemented is interesting and important, but should it be
    main subject in this discussion that such a kinds of kernel hook is necessary
    to implement process-accounting per process-aggregation reasonable ?

    In my understanding, what Andrew Morton said is "If target functionality can
    implement in user space only, then we should not modify the kernel-tree".
    But, any kind of kernel support was required to handle process lifecycle events
    for the accounting per process-aggregation and so on, from our discussion.

    I'm also opposed to an adhoc approach, like CSA depending on ELSA.
    We should walk hight road.

    Linux Promotion Center, NEC
    KaiGai Kohei <>
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.021 / U:0.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site