Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Jul 2004 03:34:13 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6.7-mm5] perfctr low-level documentation |
| |
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:44:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se> wrote: > >> > >> I'm > >> considering Christoph Hellwig's suggestion of moving > >> the API back to /proc/<pid>/, but with multiple files > >> and open/read/write/mmap instead of ioctl. I believe I > >> can make that work, but it would take a couple of days > >> to implement properly. Please indicate if you would like > >> this change or not. > > > >What would be the advantages of such a change? > > Eliminating the 6 or so new syscalls I was forced > to add when nuking the old ioctl() API.
syscalls are cheap.
> There would be a /proc/<pid>/<tid>/perfctr/ directory > with files representing the control data, counter > state, general info, and auxiliary control ops.
Futzing around with /proc handlers and mmapping /proc files doesn't sound very attractive. Unless we have some solid reason for changing things I'd be inclined to leave it as-is. Do you agree? - 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/
| |