Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262770AbVBYSLN (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:11:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262771AbVBYSLM (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:11:12 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:4578 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262770AbVBYSLK (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:11:10 -0500 Message-ID: <421F6A6A.5050503@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:11:54 -0800 From: Jay Lan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: zh-tw, en-us, en, zh-cn, zh-hk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wright CC: Andrew Morton , Kaigai Kohei , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net, tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de, erikj@subway.americas.sgi.com, limin@dbear.engr.sgi.com, jbarnes@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages References: <42168D9E.1010900@sgi.com> <20050218171610.757ba9c9.akpm@osdl.org> <421993A2.4020308@ak.jp.nec.com> <421B955A.9060000@sgi.com> <421C2B99.2040600@ak.jp.nec.com> <421CEC38.7010008@sgi.com> <421EB299.4010906@ak.jp.nec.com> <20050224212839.7953167c.akpm@osdl.org> <421F6139.5020207@sgi.com> <20050225174525.GF28536@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> In-Reply-To: <20050225174525.GF28536@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> 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: 1333 Lines: 47 Chris Wright wrote: > * Jay Lan (jlan@sgi.com) wrote: > >>Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>Kaigai Kohei 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/