From: Kaigai K. <ka...@ak...> - 2005-02-23 11:28:45
|
Hi, Thanks for your comments. Andrew Morton wrote: >> Some process-aggregation model have own philosophy and implemantation, >> so it's hard to integrate. Thus, I think that common 'fork/exec/exit' event handling >> framework to implement any kinds of process-aggregation. > > > We really want to avoid doing such stuff in-kernel if at all possible, of > course. > > Is it not possible to implement the fork/exec/exit notifications to > userspace so that a daemon can track the process relationships and perform > aggregation based upon individual tasks' accounting? That's what one of > the accounting systems is proposing doing, I believe. > > (In fact, why do we even need the notifications? /bin/ps can work this > stuff out). It's hard to prove that we can't implement the process-aggregation only in user-space, but there are some difficulties on imaplementation, I think. For example, each process must have a tag or another identifier to explain what process-aggregation does it belong, but kernel does not support thoes kind of information, currently. Thus, we can't guarantee associating one process-aggregation with one process. # /proc/<uid>/loginuid might be candidate, but it's out of original purpose. We might be able to make alike system, but is it hard to implement strict process-aggregation without any kernel supports? I think that well thought out kernel-modification is better than ad-hoc implementation on user-space. Thanks. -- Linux Promotion Center, NEC KaiGai Kohei <ka...@ak...> |