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
    Chris Wright wrote:
    > * 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?

    PAGG serves more than JOB+CSA.

    I am looking into possiblity/feasibility of implementing JOB at
    userspace. However, even with JOB as a kernel module, the fork,
    exec and exit upcalls would be sufficient to support JOB+CSA.

    Thanks,
    - jay

    >
    > thanks,
    > -chris

    -
    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:0.028 / U:88.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site