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

[Chris Wright]

* 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?

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
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/