From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 19 14:19:29 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60A216A420 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:19:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD42B13C4A3 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:19:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7A91A4D8D; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:51:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Alexander Leidinger Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:41:47 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200710171245.36949.jhb@freebsd.org> <200710181450.38224.jhb@freebsd.org> <20071019113444.xinyc37x9cg0ckk0@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20071019113444.xinyc37x9cg0ckk0@webmail.leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710190841.48129.jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" Subject: Re: sensors fun.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:19:29 -0000 On Friday 19 October 2007 05:34:44 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting John Baldwin (from Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:50:37 -0400): > > > On Thursday 18 October 2007 07:39:49 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> To me it looks like your proposal spans more than one of the above > >> described layers in one package. It seems you describe what I call > >> single-system sensors framework above. It looks like you want to have > >> this with parts of it in the kernel. I don't think this is a good idea > >> as I don't think userland data should be feed into the kernel. Could > >> you please describe where you see benefits of your architecture > >> compared to the description I provided above? > > > > Nowhere do I suggest to feed userland data into the kernel just so it can be > > reexported to userland. Instead, I think the "public" interface that systat, > > monitoring daemons, SNMP, etc. should be a userland interface that can have > > multiple backends. It can pull data from a sensor implemented in userland or > > a sensor implemented in the kernel. > > I was thinking you talk about the interface between the kernel and the > userland. Now I think that you talk more or less about something which > could be implemented e.g., as an userland library which not only polls > the kernel sensors framework, but provides the single-system sensor > data (and could be a base of a singe-system sensor daemon which feeds > its data to a group-level sensors framework). Does this sound like > what you have in mind? Yes. And I don't think that the kernel-userland interface for kernel-backed sensors should be a "public" interface, but a private backend that only the sensors framework uses. The "public" interface that tools and users, etc. should be using is the library. Basically, in your three levels of sensors I think the first level should be an implementation detail that is free to change if needed as it won't be a "public" API. The stable, public API would be the userland interface. -- John Baldwin