Re: [BENCHMARK] nproc: netlink access to /proc information

[Albert Cahalan]

On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 17:41, Roger Luethi wrote:

> And FWIW, you don't need the "minimum set of /proc
> files needed to supply some required set of process
> attributes". Any set that supplies the required fields
> will do, and you can get an excellent approximation
> in O(n).

You got that, and you didn't like it.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to hack up some
special-case optimization for the cases you've
listed. As soon as I do so, you'll find another
special case. Ultimately, you ARE asking to have
procps solve the NP-hard set-covering problem.

There are several good reasons to not go down
that path. The potential for increasing numbers
of /proc files in the future is one. Another is
the very limited benefit; typical ps usage does
require much of that data. Maintainability is yet
another reason; ps does more than just spit out the
data. It is very useful to have a decent selection
of data items that will always be available for
process selection, sorting, and any other use.
The potential for adding bugs is great.

That said, I do at times tweak the code used to
select data sources. Perhaps I should add a new
/proc/*/basics file for the most popular items.
This would make fancy set-covering choices more
profitable.


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