PAG support, try #2
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"chas" == chas williams <[email protected]> writes:
chas> In message <[email protected]>,David Howells
Quoted 8 lines · chas> writes:
Quoted 8 lines
Where's this 1:1 come from? PAGs aren't 1:1 with processes, nor are they 1:1 with users.
I've tried to implement them as I understand the design information I could find (which specified that any process could belong to a single PAG). From the comments that have been made, it seems that each user needs some sort of fallback token set for any process that doesn't have a PAG.
chas> PAGs shouldnt be 1:1 with processes or users. They are closer chas> in nature to process groups. However, a process wouldnt loose
PAGs as you describe them are beginning to sound like a Cray `job', although used for a different purpose.
Each process had a jobid in addition to its other IDs. This was set at login or by NQS (or by a few other privileged processes), initially identical to the session ID. After that, setsid(), setpgid(), setpgrp() etc., would not change the job ID.
The job ID was used for accounting and resource managemment, IIRC.
--
Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all slightly different.