Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Wed Nov 07 2001 - 16:14:37 EST

Next message: Brenneke, Matthew Jeffrey (UMR-Student): "RE: Yet another design for /proc. Or actually /kernel."
Previous message: Andreas Dilger: "Re: ext3 vs resiserfs vs xfs"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]"
Next in thread: Tim Jansen: "Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:

> > > It eats CPU, it's error-prone, and all in all it's just "wrong".
> >
> > How much of your CPU time is spent parsing /proc files?
>
> 30% of 486 if you run top... That's way too much and top is unusable
> on slower machines.
> "Not fast enough for showing processes" sounds wery wrong.

Is this time actually spent parsing ascii, or is it procfs
walking all the page tables of all processes ? ;)

Rik

-- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Brenneke, Matthew Jeffrey (UMR-Student): "RE: Yet another design for /proc. Or actually /kernel."
Previous message: Andreas Dilger: "Re: ext3 vs resiserfs vs xfs"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]"
Next in thread: Tim Jansen: "Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:36 EST