Kay Sievers wrote:
> Looks fine so far, but I still don't see how reading a seq-proc-file
> could miss entries. Are you expecting this to happen? Did you ever see
> this for any of these files?
>
Hi Kay,

The answer is slightly complex.  No I never saw it happen, but I am
concerned about it.  To illustrate that, consider the following test
program and the output log attached.  Basically, the /proc/stat file
does seem to be changing dynamically and an open file does not
present a stable snapshot.  So the danger is that the procs_running
might get split at a 4k boundary and the split changes by the time
the next read occurs so procs_running is corrupted.

All of this said, I am not really happy with the retries strategy.
 From my perspective it would be better simply not to throttle
if the procs_running isn't found and let the process scheduler
cope --- at least if the system has a fair bit of memory.  But I
have not been in on the throttling discussions and so apply a
large grain of salt :-).

George