From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>
To: mingo@elte.hu
Cc: acahalan@cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan),
procps-list@redhat.com, torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexl@redhat.com,
viro@math.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [patch] procfs/procps threading performance speedup, 2.5.62
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:29:26 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302241229.h1OCTRF331287@saturn.cs.uml.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302241214290.22804-100000@localhost.localdomain> from "Ingo Molnar" at Feb 24, 2003 12:26:19 PM
> Albert, do you realize the simple fact that the procps
> enhancements we did change absolutely nothing for the 'ps m'
> case? All thread PIDs are still scanned and sorted.
That is a contradiction. There is no sorting with "ps m".
Any ordering is from the /proc directory itself.
Sorting is not default because of the memory requirements
and because there have been many kernel bugs that cause
ps to hang when it hits a particular process. Sorting may
mean that ps hangs or is killed before producing anything.
> And mind you, thread-directories do not change much in
> this area - the PIDs within the thread-directory will
> still be largely unsorted, and it will not make the
> reading & sorting of 20K threads any faster.
That's OK. I need in-kernel grouping, not in-kernel sorting.
It's fine to mix up thread order, but bad to interleave the
threads of unrelated processes.
> so in fact _i_ came up with this whole issue 7 months ago. I just dont
> share many of _your_ largely bogus arguments that seem to miss the point.
> Can we finally stop this storm in a teapot?
Glad to, assuming you understand the importance of grouping.
I hope I have now done a better job of explaining it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-24 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-20 16:33 Ingo Molnar
2003-02-20 16:47 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2003-02-20 16:55 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-20 17:00 ` Nikita Danilov
2003-02-20 17:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-20 17:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-20 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-21 7:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2003-02-20 17:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-22 20:52 ` Albert Cahalan
2003-02-22 21:55 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-22 23:04 ` Albert Cahalan
2003-02-23 18:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-23 21:51 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2003-02-24 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 11:12 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2003-02-24 11:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 12:29 ` Albert D. Cahalan [this message]
2003-02-24 12:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 12:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 12:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-24 12:13 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2003-02-20 17:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-02-20 17:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-02-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-20 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-20 19:13 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200302241229.h1OCTRF331287@saturn.cs.uml.edu \
--to=acahalan@cs.uml.edu \
--cc=alexl@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=procps-list@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®