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
* Jay Lan (jlan@sgi.com) wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >
> >>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".
> >
> >
> >fork, exec and exit upcalls sound pretty good to me. As long as
> >
> >a) they use the same common machinery and
> >
> >b) they are next-to-zero cost if something is listening on the netlink
> > socket but no accounting daemon is running.
> >
> >Question is: is this sufficient for CSA?
>
> Yes, fork, exec, and exit upcalls are sufficient for CSA.

As soon as you want to throttle tasks at the Job level, this would be
insufficient. But, IIRC, that's not one of PAGG/Job/CSA's requirements
right?

thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
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    [W:0.130 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site