Re: ps performance sucks (was Re: dcache_rcu [performance results])

jw schultz
2002-11-05T04:19:56Z

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:14:19PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> I think it's pretty trivial to make /proc/<pid>/psinfo, which
> dumps the garbage from all five files in one place. Which makes
> it 5 times better, but it still sucks.

And i'd still keep environ seperate. I'm inclined to think
ps should never have presented it in the first place.
This is the direction i (for what it's worth) favor.

> > Don't get me wrong. I believe in the one field per file
> > rule but ps &co are the exception that proves (tests) the
> > rule. Especially on the heavily laden systems with
> > tens of thousands of tasks. We could do with a something
> > between /dev/kmem and five files per pid.
>
> I had a very brief think about this at the weekend, seeing
> if I could make a big melting pot /proc/psinfo file that did
> seqfile and read everything out in one go, using seq_file
> internally to interate over the tasklist. The most obvious
> problem that sprung to mind seems to be the tasklist locking -
> you obviously can't just hold a lock over the whole thing.
> As I know very little about that, I'll let someone else suggest
> how to do this, but I'm prepared to do the grunt work of implementing
> it if need be.

Yep, can't hold the lock across syscalls. That would be
quite a bit of data to hold in a per fd buffer. Think of
the big iron with tons of processes.

The other way i could see this working is to present it as a
sparse file. ps (or whatever) would first get a list of
pids then iterate over them using lseek to set the file
offset to pid * CONSTANT_SIZE and read would return
something smaller than CONSTANT_SIZE bytes. If the pid no
longer exists return 0.

I really hate this idea. It stinks almost as much as
/dev/kmem.

--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: jw@pegasys.ws

Remember Cernan and Schmitt