Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:42:19 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net> To: Marcin Dalecki <mdcki@gmx.net> Cc: "Myron J. Mayfield" <nugent511@comcast.net> Subject: Re: /dev/shm Message-ID: <20030707154218.GA13563@saltmine.radix.net> In-Reply-To: <3F097719.8030301@gmx.net> References: <3F08B199.3050409@comcast.net> <3F08B79B.2040805@gmx.net> <20030707001443.GA1530@invisible-island.net> <20030707002347.GC5141@aurema.com> <20030706203440.D89894@vhost101.his.com> <3F08C4FD.8010107@gmx.net> <m3el12lf91.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <3F09663D.9020200@gmx.net> <20030707123707.GA18750@saltmine.radix.net> <3F097719.8030301@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:35:21PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > Thomas Dickey wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > > >>You know that file system name lookup is one of the most > >>expensive system calls under UNIX? > > > > > >stating the obvious is a clumsy rhetorical ploy (asking for agreement > >without > >making a point). > > The point is that this is one of the reasons why the top command in > question takes a lot of relative CPU time under Linux. Some > "faster" versions of procps utils try to cache data but the trade off > is simply the fact that the results are not 100% accurate. > I tought this was obvious? too obvious. supposing that the application kept an open stream on the procps "file" and simply did a rewind. (That's assuming that procps was done "properly" - making it just like a real file ;-) -- Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@radix.net> <dickey@herndon4.his.com> http://dickey.his.com ftp://dickey.his.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030707154218.GA13563>