On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:19:06 -0400 "Michael Chang" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > All this would end up needing runtime configurability and tweakability and
> > customisability. All standard fare for userspace stuff - much easier than
> > patching the kernel.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the problem is resource
> allocation when switching from state A to state B, and from B to C,
> etc.; wouldn't it be a bad thing if state B happened to be (in the
> future) this state-shifting userspace daemon of which you speak? (Or
> is that likely to be impossible/unlikely for some other reason which
> alludes me at the moment?)
Well. I was assuming that the daemon wouldn't be a great memory pig.
I suspect it would do practically zero IO and would use little memory.
It could even be mlocked, but I doubt if that would be needed.
-
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]
