From: Kaigai K. <ka...@ak...> - 2005-01-31 09:40:18
|
Thanks for your comments. >>But what I really wanted is a Common fork()/exit() event handling framework. > > Could you expand on this a bit? Especially since you acknowledge that loadable > modules are not particularly essential to your work, I am curious as to what > else you find valuable in such a fork/exit framework. If we can implement some advanced features (CpuSet, CSA+Job, CKRM, etc...) as a kernel loadable module, it's best I also think. But using the hooks in fork()/exit() is better than patching to fork.c or exit.c for each feature, even though it can't be implemented as a kernel loadable module. Because we need not modify kernel/fork.c or kernel/exit.c directly. For example, we must append individually cpuset_fork() for CpuSet, pagg_attach() for PAGG(CSA+Job), ckrm_cb_fork() for CKRM in kernel/fork.c when we try to use those advanced features. In this case, we need to patch into three points in kernel/fork.c. But if we have a common purpose hook in kernel/fork.c, those advanced features does not need to modify kernel/fork.c directly. They have only to register their own event handler for the fork-hook. In short, my motivation is to integrate the hooks plugged ramdomly in kernel/fork.c and so on. Thanks. -- Linux Promotion Center, NEC KaiGai Kohei <ka...@ak...> |