Re: [PATCH 2.5] speedup kallsyms_lookup

[Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz@gmx.ch>]

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
>