Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] nproc: netlink access to /proc information | From | Albert Cahalan <> | Date | 29 Aug 2004 19:31:17 -0400 |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |