[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] O(1) proc_pid_readdir
    On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    >> I'm heavily on the side of deterministic bounds here (these things trip
    >> the NMI oopser, so if the bounds aren't deterministic, neither is
    >> stability), so I favor manfred's proc_pid_readdir() algorithm.

    On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:22:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > no, the code in question here is worst-case O(nr_tasks). It is worst-case
    > quadratic only if the number of syscalls done during a full 'ps' readdir()
    > sequence is considered as well. This thing will never trigger the NMI
    > oopser. And in the common-case it has constant overhead.

    Hmm. I was under the (false) impression it filled as many as directory
    entries as possible given count. Something else strange is going on then.

    The NMI oopses are mostly decoded by hand b/c in-kernel (and other)
    backtrace decoders can't do it automatically. I might have to generate
    some fresh data, with some kind of hack (e.g. hand-coded NMI-based kind
    of smp_call_function) to trace the culprit and not just the victim.
    The victims were usually stuck in fork() or exit().

    -- wli
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.019 / U:6.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site