lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: /proc guidelines and sysctl
    Date
    In article <linux.kernel.20000108214551.A9170@cerebro.laendle>,
    Marc Lehmann <marc@gimp.org> wrote:

    >That procps and procfs are dog slow (just read what I wrote). And (an
    >enhanced) sysctl would provide for a far faster top!

    Admittedly, in the case where you start top and lean on the spacebar
    it would be faster, but it seems like having top refresh 30+ times a
    second would be wasting 29+ of those refreshes.

    On my build machine (which, admittedly, is one of my K7s, so the
    figures are a bit skewed) top[+], when refreshing every second,
    takes 0.99% of the processor. And on the Celeron/338 I'm using as a
    workstation, it takes a princely .098% to do the same.

    On my servers (all K6-[23]'s, running corporate nfs, samba, mail,
    dishwashing), the difference between taking 0.10% and 0.20% of the
    processor to do a 5 second refresh doesn't seem like that much.
    And top is really the only proc-based application I can think of
    that chugs through /proc on a periodic basis. I can think of some
    good reasons to go with sysctl() [primarily getting around some
    of the badly designed proc displays which can't officially change
    but which do change enough to make upgrading to a new release
    a little more annoying] but performance doesn't leap out and
    grab me.

    ____
    david parsons \bi/ [+: the real top, not the procps one]
    \/


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:2.806 / U:0.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site