From: Jay L. <jl...@sg...> - 2005-02-25 18:11:17
|
Chris Wright wrote: > * Jay Lan (jl...@sg...) wrote: > >>Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>Kaigai Kohei <ka...@ak...> 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 |