Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:58:16 -0400 (EDT) | From | Hasdi R Hashim <> | Subject | rationale behind /proc filesystem? (wuz Re: 2.0, loggings....) |
| |
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Aaron Tiensivu wrote: > > > > That's the main reason /proc is there, from what I can gather.. so you can > > write 'support' programs that can do exactly what 'Portato' or 'ps' does. > > > > BUT... opening files in /proc sometimes up to 3 times a second does not > wear well for the system CPU load. A kernel feature would work immensely > better.
What do you propose? A syscall?
This is one thing I STILL don't get about /proc filesystem. Just adding one simple swiss-army kind of syscall should give you all the information you need about the kernel without even checking the /proc filesystem. A syscall implementation is a lot smaller /proc and more efficient (all that open/read/write/close stuff - yuk!)
What is the rationale behind /proc filesystem? Is this part of making almost everything in UNIX look like a file? From my understanding, the aim of /proc filesystem is enable programs like ps to check on the system status without poking to version/config specific part of the kernel (did I get that right?). Why not add a syscall? Can somebody explain this me? :}
Regards,
Hasdi still-with-DOS-programming-mentality
|  |