Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265166AbUD3SBF (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:01:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265171AbUD3SBF (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:01:05 -0400 Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.134]:24314 "EHLO mtagate1.uk.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265166AbUD3SBA (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:01:00 -0400 Message-ID: <40929446.2080009@watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:00:38 -0400 From: Shailabh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guillaume Thouvenin CC: Christoph Hellwig , Rik van Riel , Erik Jacobson , Paul Jackson , chrisw@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Process Aggregates (PAGG) support for the 2.6 kernel References: <20040430071750.A8515@infradead.org> <1083323300.409233a4459e3@www.imp.polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: <1083323300.409233a4459e3@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2138 Lines: 49 Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > Selon Christoph Hellwig : > > >>>I suspect there's a rather good chance of merging a common >>>PAGG/CKRM infrastructure, since they pretty much do the same >>>thing at the core and they both have different functionality >>>implemented on top of the core process grouping. >> >>Still doesn't make a lot of sense. CKRM is a huge cludgy beast poking >>everywhere while PAGG is a really small layer to allow kernel modules >>keeping per-process state. If CKRM gets merged at all (and the current >>looks far to horrible and the gains are rather unclear) it should layer >>ontop of something like PAGG for the functionality covered by it. > > > And what about put the management of containers outside the kernel. We could for > exemple use a program that will listen file /proc/acct_event and execute a > programs to handle the event like ACPID does. Of course it will need some kernel > modifications but those modifications will be small as process aggregation will > be done outside the kernel. We could also use relayfs to exchange datas between > user program and the kernel. > > Guillaume Guillaume, As mentioned in my response to Christoph, keeping process aggregation outside the kernel (or as a module that sits atop process-centric patches) will work only for statistics gathering and coarse-grain control. CKRM's crbce controller (will be put up on http://ckrm.sf.net within a day...) uses relayfs to send per-process data to a privileged user program (will also be included) that can use the data as it pleases, including doing aggregation. We think a class-aware kernel is the right way to go and it can be done with sufficiently low impact that one doesn't have to unnecessarily limit the flexibility of users in defining process groups (=classes) or the time periods over which shares can be enforced. -- Shailabh - 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/