[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages
From: Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:40:41 -0800
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxx, guillaume.thouvenin@xxxxxxxx, kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, jlan@xxxxxxx, lse-tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, elsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1109592658.2188.924.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI
References: <42168D9E.1010900@xxxxxxx> <20050218171610.757ba9c9.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <421993A2.4020308@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <421B955A.9060000@xxxxxxx> <421C2B99.2040600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <421CEC38.7010008@xxxxxxx> <421EB299.4010906@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050224212839.7953167c.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20050227094949.GA22439@xxxxxxxxxx> <4221E548.4000008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050227140355.GA23055@xxxxxxxxxx> <42227AEA.6050002@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109575236.8549.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050227233943.6cb89226.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Jamal wrote:
> What was wrong with just going ahead and just always
> invoking your netlink_send()? 

I think the hope was to reduce the cost of the accounting hook in fork
to "next-to-zero" if accounting is not being used on that system.

See Andrew's query earlier:
> b) they are next-to-zero cost if something is listening on the netlink
>    socket but no accounting daemon is running.

Presumably sending an ignored packet costs something, quite possibly
more than "next-to-zero".

                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>