On Monday 21 February 2005 15:43, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > > I also choose this implementation because Erich Focht wrote in the > email http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/17/99 that keeps the historic about > the creation of processes "sounds very useful for a lot of interesting > stuff". So I thought about something that can be used by other > application and with netlink, information is available to everyone.
Besides accounting I had in mind something like cluster-wide pid tracking in userspace with builtin relationship information. A bit of single system image integration... As I don't have it, yet, I'm not (yet) a very strong requester for the service provided by your module. But I still think it's usefull and might want later a hook on exit, too. (And yes, I can imagine of other ways to get the data effectively out of the kernel, too). > Results are: > > kernel without fork connector > real : 8m17.042s 8m10.113s 8m08.597s 8m10.068s 8m08.930s > user : 7m32.376s 7m35.985s 7m34.424s 7m34.221s 7m34.835s > sys : 0m50.730s 0m51.139s 0m51.159s 0m51.406s 0m51.020s > > kernel with the fork connector > real : 8m14.492s 8m08.656s 8m07.754s 8m08.002s 8m07.854s > user : 7m31.664s 7m33.528s 7m33.625s 7m33.500s 7m33.822s > sys : 0m50.651s 0m51.222s 0m51.102s 0m51.367s 0m50.894s > > kernel with the fork connector + application listens > real : 8m08.596s 8m08.950s 8m08.899s 8m08.678s 8m08.987s > user : 7m33.312s 7m33.898s 7m34.004s 7m33.285s 7m33.628s > sys : 0m52.222s 0m52.013s 0m51.809s 0m52.361s 0m52.036s I liked the previous lean implementation more, but the performance of this one doesn't look at all as scary as I thought. Best regards, Erich - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/