From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 15 22:19:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D273A14D83 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:19:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA23505 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:19:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PATCH for testing In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:13:46 PST." <199911152213.OAA20176@kithrup.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:19:27 +0100 Message-ID: <23503.942733167@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199911152213.OAA20176@kithrup.com>, Sean Eric Fagan writes: >In article <22209.942703421.kithrup.freebsd.current@critter.freebsd.dk> you write: >>The p_args.patch patch implements a cache of the commandline arguments >>in the process structure and makes ps(1) pick it up from there with >>sysctl rather than by groping around in the target process memory. > >I don't think this should go in at all. > >It increases the size of the proc structure (thereby affecting _all_ >processes) gratuitously. While I'm generally in favour of having the process >arguments kept around, the "BSD way" has been to only examine them in user >memory, despite that being unreliable and just annoying. > >The benefits are fairly minimal, and I don't believe justify the cost >incurred. That's fine, you can disable it by setting the sysctl. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message