Re: RFC: New kernel proc interface

Mike Kilburn (
Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:45:26 +0200 (SAT)

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Rob Riggs wrote:

> When the file is closed, all that memory is freed. 3.2MB is
> a pitance today. Anyone that is using 40K routes can afford
> the US$12 for another 4MB.

Not that I disagree but to be realistic about it you can
rarely just add "4MB for US$12". Adding more memory usually
requires more than popping in a 4MB simm.

> The current proc code was the best solution when RAM was limited.
> Today's systems have much more RAM than in the past. Hacks like

I think it depends on the application. Linux is used in many
environments. Not all are servers or X11 workstations or
big routers.

> If this is really an issue, implimenting backwards compatibilty
> for memory critical proc routines is trivial.

Please do. Maybe one could implement proc as a loadable filesystem
module. This way we could have a different version for machines that
cannot afford the bloat of proc (new or old).