Re: /proc/cpuinfo verbiage differ unnecessarily between ports...

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
3 Sep 1999 16:11:59 -0700

In article <linux.kernel.d3n1v4o3ed.fsf@lxp03.cern.ch>,
Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Turner <glen.turner@adelaide.edu.au> writes:
>
>Glen> As the author of some SNMP code, I'd like to see the *whole* of
>Glen> /proc adopt a consistent, simple to parse, simple to read,
>Glen> simple to write structure.
>
>Actually for this you'd want a simple sructured kernel interface,
>maybe via syscall, to get this information out of the kernel rather
>than having your user space tool parse /proc. Having the kernel
>generate ascii strings, then copying these to user space just to have
>the user space application reparse them in the end is pretty expensive
>when all you really want is to read an integer value or two.

It's been a while since I've done anything with SNMP, but I believe
that the preferred way to do SNMP is to pass things around in a
human-readable form. If the kernel is doing it for you, it's just
a little something extra.

>Once you start cranking up the sample frequency the monitoring can
>actually start affecting the system load.

I don't think there's anyone who doesn't believe that.

____
david parsons \bi/ At 200 mips, I can probably spare 100000 cycles every
\/ 5 seconds or so.

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