From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f69.google.com (mail-it0-f69.google.com [209.85.214.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29E18309D for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it0-f69.google.com with SMTP id x131so70285544ite.0 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0074.hostedemail.com. [216.40.44.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y203si5410200itc.30.2016.08.18.07.46.08 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1471531563.4319.41.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc, smaps: reduce printing overhead From: Joe Perches Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:46:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160818144149.GO30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1471519888-13829-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1471526765.4319.31.camel@perches.com> <20160818142616.GN30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160818144149.GO30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Jann Horn On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 16:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 18-08-16 16:26:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > > b) doesn't it try to be overly clever when doing that in the caller > > doesn't cost all that much? Sure you can save few bytes in the spaces > > but then I would just argue to use \t rather than fixed string length. > ohh, I misread the code. It tries to emulate the width formater. But is > this really necessary? Do we know about any tools doing a fixed string > parsing? I don't, but it's proc and all the output formatting shouldn't be changed. Appended to is generally OK, but whitespace changed is not good. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767901AbcHROqN (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:46:13 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0094.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.94]:35803 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1947273AbcHROqJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:46:09 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:981:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2740:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:6119:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:13439:14659:21080:30012:30054:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: feet16_5245b57c4e763 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1578 Message-ID: <1471531563.4319.41.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc, smaps: reduce printing overhead From: Joe Perches To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Jann Horn Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:46:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160818144149.GO30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1471519888-13829-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1471526765.4319.31.camel@perches.com> <20160818142616.GN30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160818144149.GO30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 16:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 18-08-16 16:26:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > > b) doesn't it try to be overly clever when doing that in the caller > > doesn't cost all that much? Sure you can save few bytes in the spaces > > but then I would just argue to use \t rather than fixed string length. > ohh, I misread the code. It tries to emulate the width formater. But is > this really necessary? Do we know about any tools doing a fixed string > parsing? I don't, but it's proc and all the output formatting shouldn't be changed. Appended to is generally OK, but whitespace changed is not good.