From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 7 08:46:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30E137B401 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59DF43F3F for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:46:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dickey@saltmine.radix.net) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h67FgJ1o013829; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dickey@localhost) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id h67FgJS0013827; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:42:19 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey To: Marcin Dalecki Message-ID: <20030707154218.GA13563@saltmine.radix.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> <3F09663D.9020200@gmx.net> <20030707123707.GA18750@saltmine.radix.net> <3F097719.8030301@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F097719.8030301@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i cc: Matthias Andree cc: dickey@herndon4.his.com cc: Thomas Dickey cc: current@freebsd.org cc: "Myron J. Mayfield" Subject: Re: /dev/shm X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:46:11 -0000 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 http://dickey.his.com ftp://dickey.his.com