lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 ?
...<ommited>...
>> 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.

Thanks,
--
Linux Promotion Center, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans