Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages

[Jay Lan]

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jay Lan (jlan@xxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/