From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261906AbVCANie (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:38:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261907AbVCANiW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:38:22 -0500 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.214]:21145 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261906AbVCANhm (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:37:42 -0500 Message-ID: <42247051.7070303@ak.jp.nec.com> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:38:25 +0900 From: Kaigai Kohei User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: ja, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guillaume Thouvenin Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , hadi@cyberus.ca, Thomas Graf , Andrew Morton , marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, "David S. Miller" , jlan@sgi.com, LSE-Tech , lkml , netdev@oss.sgi.com, elsa-devel Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages References: <4221E548.4000008@ak.jp.nec.com> <20050227140355.GA23055@logos.cnet> <42227AEA.6050002@ak.jp.nec.com> <1109575236.8549.14.camel@frecb000711.frec.bull.fr> <20050227233943.6cb89226.akpm@osdl.org> <1109592658.2188.924.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228132051.GO31837@postel.suug.ch> <1109598010.2188.994.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228135307.GP31837@postel.suug.ch> <1109599803.2188.1014.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228142551.GQ31837@postel.suug.ch> <1109604693.1072.8.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050228191759.6f7b656e@zanzibar.2ka.mipt.ru> <1109665299.8594.55.camel@frecb000711.frec.bull.fr> In-Reply-To: <1109665299.8594.55.camel@frecb000711.frec.bull.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, > I tested without user space listeners and the cost is negligible. I will > test with a user space listeners and see the results. I'm going to run > the test this week after improving the mechanism that switch on/off the > sending of the message. I'm also trying to mesure the process-creation/destruction performance on following three environment. Archtechture: i686 / Distribution: Fedora Core 3 * Kernel Preemption is DISABLE * SMP kernel but UP-machine / Not Hyper Threading [1] 2.6.11-rc4-mm1 normal [2] 2.6.11-rc4-mm1 with PAGG based Process Accounting Module [3] 2.6.11-rc4-mm1 with fork-connector notification (it's enabled) When 367th-fork() was called after fork-connector notification, kernel was locked up. (User-Space-Listener has been also run until 366th-fork() notification was received) Does this number have any sort of means ? In my second trial, kernel was also locked up after 366th-fork() notification. Currently, I don't know its causition. Is there a person encounted it? # I wanted to say "[2] is faster than [3]" when process-grouping is enable, but the plan came off. :( Thanks. -- Linux Promotion Center, NEC KaiGai Kohei