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

[Andrew Morton]

Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  The common agreement for the method of dealing with process aggregation
>  has not been constructed yet, I understood. And, we will not able to
>  integrate each process aggregation model because of its diverseness.
> 
>  For example, a process which belong to JOB-A must not belong any other
>  'JOB-X' in CSA-model. But, In ELSA-model, a process in BANK-B can concurrently
>  belong to BANK-B1 which is a child of BANK-B.
> 
>  And, there are other defferences:
>  Whether a process not to belong to any process-aggregation is permitted or not ?
>  Whether a process-aggregation should be inherited to child process or not ?
>  (There is possibility not to be inherited in a rule-based process aggregation like CKRM)
> 
>  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).

-
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/