All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: kerolasa@gmail.com
Cc: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: ipc: object information data in proc and sysfs
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:12:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121119161250.ae0b25ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG27Bk1q5t590bvGg7Ka+2M-yWEMk_58sZsOxDKx-1XNn8mHww@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:31:08 +0000
Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> While back I started to look how to get util-linux ipcs(1) tool to
> read values from /proc instead of using IPC multiplex functions.  Most
> of the data ipcs(1) is interested is available in /proc, but there are
> few exceptions, such as
> 
> msgctl q_qbytes
> semctl getval
> semctl sempid
> semctl semncnt
> semctl semzcnt
> 
> The simplest thing to do would be to add values in /proc/sysvipc/msg
> and /proc/sysvipc/sem as additional fields, but that does not seem
> right, as it would result to ABI change.
> 
> More effort requiring change would be to add information in new sysfs
> paths.  The IPC facilities are using id's which could be used as
> placeholder directories for the data needed.  Something like
> 
> /proc/sys/kernel/ipc/{m,s,q}/id/info
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That sort of structure would allow future extensions IPC data without
> much pain.  I also assume that subdirectories could allow a little
> more precise controls, and perhaps some selected values might be made
> writable in future.  If nothing else at least expressing in sensible
> format semaphore lock wait queues could make debugging tools, such as
> lslocks(8), more useful.
> 
> I could give a try this change, but not without hearing the concept
> makes sense and could be considered part of upstream kernel (assuming
> my coding meets the usual quality criteria).
> 
> Any thoughts, comments, recommendations?

Where's the benefit in switching ipcs over to using /proc?

procfs reads are probably slower than the syscalls?

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-20  0:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-18 12:31 ipc: object information data in proc and sysfs Sami Kerola
2012-11-20  0:12 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-11-20 12:21   ` Karel Zak
2012-11-25 11:11     ` Sami Kerola

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=20121119161250.ae0b25ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=kerolasa@gmail.com \
    --cc=kerolasa@iki.fi \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kzak@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.