Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:03:02 +1100 | From | Stuart Young <> | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] |
| |
At 02:52 PM 4/11/01 -0500, Alexander Viro wrote: >Would the esteemed sir care to check where these cycles are spent? >How about "traversing page tables of every damn process out there"? >Doesn't sound like a string operation to me...
Just a quickie....
Any reason we can't move all the process info into something like /proc/pid/* instead of in the root /proc tree?
Should be pretty easy to do, could still have the pid's in the root /proc tree, and if they get read, do what /proc/pci does, and log a warning about "xxx is using old /proc interfaces". Makes it just that little bit easier to parse processes without fiddling around if you know all the dir's are always processes. It's also a bit of a visual cleanup when you have lots of processes and do a 'ls /proc'.
There is probably a few other things in /proc/* that could be moved out and put in more sensible places (eg: interrupts, irq, devices, mtrr, slabinfo, mounts, modules, stat, etc), that really define what they belong to (a /proc/kernel/* mebbe). Having /proc basically full of directories would clean things up a bit. Some things don't need to change though (eg: uptime, version).
AMC Enterprises P/L - Stuart Young First Floor - Network and Systems Admin 3 Chesterville Rd - sgy@amc.com.au Cheltenham Vic 3192 - Ph: (03) 9584-2700 http://www.amc.com.au/ - Fax: (03) 9584-2755
- 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/
|  |