hmm...i don't see why i want wchan. tell me.
but you're right, for some reason linus merged it. so i think (if it's
kept) we should restrict it a bit and make the kallsyms_lookup a bit
faster. not a super fast complex algorithm, but at least not that
braindead as it currently is...
btw. does my ugly early-in-the-moring-hack work right?
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 18:15, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 11:34, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > Indeed! I think that was Andi volunteering :-}
> > But we should let rml defend his wchan.
>
> Well, of course I want to keep it - but I am biased :)
>
> I think its a simple export that gives us a neat feature. Additionally,
> from the procps perspective, it saves us from having to parse System.map
> for each process. In fact, it means we do not need a System.map at all
> for any procps functionality.
>
> I guess Linus at least mildly liked it too, since he merged it.
>
> But if its such a performance crippling item perhaps it does need to be
> removed (or somehow restricted).
>
> I do agree that, if possible, wchan should be kept simple... so, is
> everyone else for the removal of /proc/pid/wchan ? :-(
>
> Robert Love
>
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:34 EST