On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 09:53:53AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-03 at 20:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Please let us know if we missed something out.
>
> Design still shaky IMO - now that i think i may understand what your end
> goal is.
> Using the principles i described in earlier email, the problem you are
> trying to solve is:
>
> a) shipping of the taskstats from kernel to user-space asynchronously to
> all listeners on multicast channel/group TASKSTATS_LISTEN_GRP
> at the point when some process exits.
> b) responding to queries issued by the user to the kernel for taskstats
> of a particular defined tgid and/or pid combination.
>
> Did i summarize your goals correctly?
Yes, you did.
>
> So lets stat with #b:
> i) the message is multicast; there has to be a user space app registered
> to the multicast group otherwise nothing goes to user space.
> ii) user space issues a GET and it seems to me the appropriate naming
> for the response is a NEW.
>
> Lets go to #a:
> The issued multicast messages are also NEW and no different from the
> ones sent in response to a GET.
>
> Having said that then, you have the following commands:
>
> enum {
> TASKSTATS_CMD_UNSPEC, /* Reserved */
> TASKSTATS_CMD_GET, /* user -> kernel query*/
> TASKSTATS_CMD_NEW, /* kernel -> user update */
> };
>
> You also need the following TLVs
>
> enum {
> TASKSTATS_TYPE_UNSPEC, /* Reserved */
> TASKSTATS_TYPE_TGID, /* The TGID */
> TASKSTATS_TYPE_PID, /* The PID */
> TASKSTATS_TYPE_STATS, /* carries the taskstats */
> TASKSTATS_TYPE_VERS, /* carries the version */
> };
>
> Refer to the doc i passed you and provide feedback if how to use the
> above is not obvious.
>
I will look at the document, just got hold of it.
> The use of TLVs above implies that any of these can be optionally
> appearing.
> So when you are going from user->kernel with a GET a in #a above, then
> you can specify the PID and/or TGID and you dont need to specify the
> STATS and this would be perfectly legal.
>
> On kernel->user (in the case of response to #a or async notifiation as
> in #b) you really dont need to specify the TG/PID since they appear in
> the STATS etc.
I see your point now. I am looking at other users of netlink like
rtnetlink and I see the classical usage.
We can implement TLV's in our code, but for the most part the data we exchange
between the user <-> kernel has all the TLV's listed in the enum above.
The major differnece is the type (pid/tgid). Hence we created a structure
(taskstats) instead of using TLV's.
> I take it you dont want to configure the values of taskstats from user
> space, otherwise user->kernel will send a NEW as well.
Your understanding is correct.
> I also take it dumping doesnt apply to you, so you dont need a dump
> callback in your kernel code.
Yes, this is correct as well.
> >From what i described so far, you dont really need a header for yourself
> either (maybe you need one to just store the VERSION?)
>
True, we do not need a header.
> I didnt understand the point to the err field you had in the reply.
> Netlink already does issue errors which can be read via perror. If this
> is different from what you need, it may be an excuse to have your own
> header.
>
Hmm.. Will look into this.
> I hope this helps.
>
Yes, it does immensely. Thanks for the detailed feedback.
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>
Warm Regards,
Balbir
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
