Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262071AbVCAUv3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:51:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262074AbVCAUvV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:51:21 -0500 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:15819 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262071AbVCAUun (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:50:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:40:41 -0800 From: Paul Jackson To: hadi@cyberus.ca Cc: akpm@osdl.org, guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net, kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, davem@redhat.com, jlan@sgi.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, elsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages Message-Id: <20050301124041.2403d641.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1109592658.2188.924.camel@jzny.localdomain> 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> <20050227094949.GA22439@logos.cnet> <4221E548.4000008@ak.jp.nec.com> <20050227140355.GA23055@logos.cnet> <42227AEA.6050002@ak.jp.nec.com> <1109575236.8549.14.camel@frecb000711.frec.bull.fr> <20050227233943.6cb89226.akpm@osdl.org> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@jzny.localdomain> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 23 Jamal wrote: > What was wrong with just going ahead and just always > invoking your netlink_send()? I think the hope was to reduce the cost of the accounting hook in fork to "next-to-zero" if accounting is not being used on that system. See Andrew's query earlier: > b) they are next-to-zero cost if something is listening on the netlink > socket but no accounting daemon is running. Presumably sending an ignored packet costs something, quite possibly more than "next-to-zero". -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401 - 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/