Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:11:54 -0800 | From | Jay Lan <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |