Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file
From: Waiman Long
Date: Mon Oct 29 2018 - 17:35:19 EST
On 10/29/2018 05:23 PM, Vito Caputo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 04:59:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 10/29/2018 04:38 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> BTW, since you are making stat2 compatible with stat, will that be
>>>> easier from the user API perspective if we use a sysctl parameter to
>>>> turn on and off IRQs reporting for /proc/stat, for example?
>>> For one /proc/stat is also common for debugging envs (ie: performance)
>>> and I fear that if a tunnable modifies the behavior of the output, we
>>> it might never be usable again (at least not without having users also
>>> now consider the systctl parameter). Making it dynamic I think is not
>>> worth it.
>> This is just a matter if it is easier for users to modify their code to
>> use /proc/stat2 or turning on a sysctl parameter. Again, this will
>> certainly depend on the circumstances.
> I wonder if it makes sense to introduce a more general mechanism for
> toggling subfields in proc files. Extended attributes could probably be
> abused to key the subfields, write a 1 or 0 to well-known names for
> toggling them on a per-fd basis via fsetxattr.
> For this particular case the program would just have to add code like:
> int zero = 0;
> fsetxattr(proc_stat_fd, "intr", &zero, sizeof(zero), XATTR_REPLACE);
> Just putting it out there. I've certainly wanted an ability to noop
> fields before where I was polling proc frequently and skipping the bulk
> of what was there but syscpu was still rather high.
> I'm definitely not in favor of just adding another stat file that is the
> same format as the existing one with the intrs zeroed out. It's a dirty
> hack; fine for your local needs but too gross for upstream IMHO.
> Vito Caputo
Does procfs allow extended attributes? I am not sure if using extended
attributes is a usual practice for doing this kind of control on a