Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:05:21 -0500 (EST) | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: RFC: New kernel proc interface |
| |
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Rob Riggs wrote:
> > On 01-Nov-96 alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote: > >> The problems described above are easily solved by allowing the > >> proc routines to write out all their data in one shot, and > >> caching that data for the user programs. > > > >Not always. The ip routing tables could be 40,000 routes or more. Which at > >80 bytes a route is 3.2Mb of data to cache ! > > > >Alan > > Is that really a problem? Isn't the trade-off worth the RAM > requirements? I knew that this would be brought up when I > decided that caching the data was necessary, but it is a > reasonable approach. If you want the data pulled out of > proc to be consistent, atomicity is necessary. > > Besides, the data is cached only while the file is held open. > When the file is closed, all that memory is freed. 3.2MB is > a pitance today. Anyone that is using 40K routes can afford > the US$12 for another 4MB.
Does your process handle the case where the requesting program fails to close the file?
John Alvord
|  |